Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya dismissed Writ Petition No. 20061 of 2024 and应用中 under Section 151 CrPC against Union of India and HDFC Bank. The Court found the petition lacked merit as there was no evidence the petitioner was actually empanelled as a Direct Selling Agent with the bank.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3405 I
HIGH COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAYOF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLEJUSTICE MOUSHUMIBHATTACHARYA
WRIT PETITIONNO:20061 OF2024
Between:
Kota konda Pitchaiah, S/oChengaiahAged about 46 years, occ Business, nyo S n T 987 Sanath'Nagdr,Hyderabad 500018' Telangana
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriatewrit, order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of writof Mandamus declaringthe action of the 2nd respondentbank infirstregisteringthepetitionerasD.S.A.oncommissionbasisbyacceptingthe KYC documents andlater asking to producethe Labour License and other licensesandnotallowingthepetitionertofunctionaSD.S.A.therebycausing loss to thepetitioner to a tune of Rs.1Ocroresas illegaland arbitrary and in violation of lawand consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitionerto continue asD.S.A. of 2nd respondent bank'
IA NO:1 OF 2024
PetitionUndersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedfo directtherespondentstopayRs.l0crorestowardscompensationbyallowing
the petitioner to cc ntinue as D.S.A. of the 2nd respondent bank, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel forthe Petitioner: SRI KOTA KONDA PITCHAIAH [PARW-IN-PERSON]
Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI PULIMAMIDI SHASHIDHAR REDDY, SC FOR CENTRAL GOW. / SRl GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,
DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF INDIA
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI Y.SHREYAN REDDY, REP. FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM
The Court made the following: ORDER
t
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
WRIT PETITION No.2OO61 of 2o24
Mr. Kota Konda Pitchaiah, petitioner (party-in-person).
Mr. Y. Shreyan Reddy, learned counsel representing M/s. Indus [,aw Firm, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
ORDER:
The Court is unable to understand the contentions of the petitioner appearing in person. The petitioner also does not appear to be interested in pursuing the litigation as he left the Court Hall on being asked for clarifications.
.{
2
for empanelnlent as a Channel partner at HDFC and to complete cert,lin formalities in this regard including filling up the details in rhe lorm.
5, Learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that the petitioner failed to complete the process and failed to submit the compieted forrn to the Bank. Counsel specifically submits that the petitioner was not empanelled as a DSA of the respondent No.2-Bank. Counsel submits that in the absence of the petitioner berr g empanelled, there is no question of the Bank be ing liable to the petitioner for any monetary amount or otherwise.
I I
7
J
g. The third annexure isan order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.3O835 of 2023.The said order was passed on completely different facts.The petitionerin that case, had been removed from thepanel of theState Bankof India, without issuing a Show Cause Noticeor any enquiry being conducted'
0
4
writ petition ( oes not have anv merit.
L2. W.P.No.20061 of 2024, along with all connected
applications. s accordingry dismissed. There sharl be no order
as to costs.
SP/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANIREG|STRAR //TRUE COPY// ,>< SECTION OFFICER
To,
BSR BSR
HIGH COUR]'
)
DATED: 0511',212024
ORDER
T T
/.
, i:
i C 13 'c:i, ?u[ -.1i, ) :i
i. -,
,,/
'i - r::--.,- _'
-:r-- /-
WP.No.20061 of 2024
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION,
WTHOUT COSTS
u^
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking mandamus to continue as a Direct Selling Agent (DSA) has any merit given the lack of evidence establishing empanelment.
Whether the petitioner has any entitlement to compensation for alleged loss due to the bank not allowing him to function as a DSA.
Whether the High Court should dismiss the writ petition and applications for interim relief.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kota konda Pitchaiah
Union of India
HDFC Bank
Moushumi Bhattacharya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
