Disposed

Kota Konda Pitchaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Dec 2023WP/8538/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner alleging illegal retention of gold ornaments seized by police. The petitioner appeared in person, the respondent denied seizure, and the matter was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the Commissioner of Police.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit fresh representation to Respondent No. 2; Respondent directed to examine and pass appropriate orders.

Kota Konda Pitchaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I32e6I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8538 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kota Konda Pitchaiah, Sio Chengaiah, Age 43 yrs, Occ: Free Lancer, Rl/o S.R.T. 987, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

Station House Officer, Sanathnagar Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in retaining petitioners bag containing Gold ornaments, for verification purpose and not returning back to petitioner, as illegal, atbi|laty and violative of the principals of natural justice.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith return the^Bag containing Gold ornaments, to the petitioner, pending disposal of the main Writ petition.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to contest W.P. No. 8538 of 2021 as party in personi Petitioner, as lam having sufficient knowledge and well versed in contesting my case as party in person.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THOMAS LLOYD/ SRI KOTA KONDA PTTCHATAH (PARTY rN PERSON) Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

I I

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE C.V.BHASKAR R.EDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.8538 OE 2O2l

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The petitioner claims that he is working as a Free l,ancer and also as Home Loan Counsellor (HLN) for Real Estate Habitat Development with Unique Identifrcation Code Number "HYDOO257" for State Balk of India. The case of the petitioner is that on 14.03.2O2 1 while he was carrying a bag containing golden ornaments worth about Rs.50.00 lakhs at Sanathnagar, with a view to obtain gold loan by pledging the same due to finalcial crisis, the szune was seized by the police constable. It is the further case of the petitioner that the police constable has informed him that due to the ensuing MLC elections, in pursuance of the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India, the said gold ornaments have been taken into custody and the same will be produced before the concerned Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that to his utter surprise, neither tl.e police produced the said golden ornaments before the concerned Court nor the same were returned to the petitioner, which constrained him to submit a representation to the superior authorities, including the Commissioner of Poiice i.e., respondent No.2 herein, but so far respondent No.2 has not acted upon the said representation.

¶27

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, besides denying all the allegations made by the petitioner, submits that the respondents

¶28

i I I

¶29

¶30

police have never seized any articre from the petitioner,s custody and therefore, the question of returning the same to the petitioner does not anse

¶31

Since the petitioner has appeared as party_in_person before this court, with a view to put a quietus to the litigation, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation on the file of respondent No.2, who in turn is directed to examine the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶32

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed There sha-ll be no order as to costs.

¶33

¶34

//rRUE copytt^{or.,rt?nft'C:S$SfR} sEcrloN^g(o.r*

¶35

1 Ase: 43 vrs, occ: Free Lancer, R/o

¶36

2 $:A:r,^ssr:e".11:??.,?B"i'fir:::it'#", 6[i#if SS|:ff ::"", Home Depa rtment secreta riar Bui td i nss, Hyderabad,

¶37

1. 1. 1. 1. ffi"$i3;gp*";ieiii1,f,fl"",tirg-l?".,Jil#"j:.

¶38

7 Two CD Copies

PSK. GJP g

HIGH COURT

DATED:15 t12t2023

ORDER

WP.No.8S38 of 2021

STA].8 o
1
\v
()
q)
::,
o [ 2 l]'li ?i'li
). .'/
*
DEs l' 1' '

¶45

DISPOSTNG OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. (9p-'³

¶46

So :-\t\Lar

Kota Konda Pitchaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kota Konda Pitchaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.B.Janardhan Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by Secretary

Arif Khan Vs State of Telangana

Mohd Ashraf Ali Vs State of Telangana

Bhusha Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Smt Chitra Rekha Rani Vs C.V.N. Raju

Akther Zahida Vs Sri. C. Sudarshan Reddy, IAS