Dismissed

M/s Venugopal Transport and Company v. The Govt. of A.P.

Telangana HC7 Mar 2024WP/5311/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition for quashing proceedings under Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 as infructuous, relying on counsel's submission that the petitioners were already discharged by the criminal court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no costs.

M/s Venugopal Transport and Company Vs The Govt… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 531 1 0F 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 [t4/s Ven^ugopal Transport and. Company, Rep. by its proprietor, K. Srinivas S/o.K _Chatapathi Rao Ased abolt 4b yJrri,'o". Fiopriiibi'Ri""if6i

¶9

^^{No.l71lB/,RoadNo.4,Atka[uri. namat<risnn'apuilm,} HyOeriSaJ.^{-"" ' '"'} 2. K. Srinivas, S/o K Charapathi Rao ng;iboliil6'y""rr, occ proprietor, M/s Venuqopat rransport and company Ht" Fi"i r.i".izi7Bl, 'R;; i,J;.i: Atilrff; Ra ma krishnapurdm, Hyderabad.

¶10

AND

¶11

...PET|TIONERS

¶12

J|" 9g4^{of A.P., Secre_tariat,Hyderabad} Rep. by its Secretary (Home) 2. The Addirionat Director Geneiat of.porice, c.r5., Lrioit"pno"rl r_rvililirra. 3. The Deputy Superinrendent of potice, sor_ti,^-cib, n.c. driroi, rivJ"iJiJo. 4. It//s. Vasavi Co-ooerative Urban Bank Ltd., MrUt p"t, Hy;;;b;b; i"p. ffit I\rlanaging Director.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or orders more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring that Sec.5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 does not apply to a loanee, Surety or Mortgagor and quash all proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner, including the offence under Section 5 of the A.p. protection of Depositors of Financiar Establishments Act, 17l1ggg taken on fire in c.c. No. 4 of 2003 on the fire Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014 w MP.^{NO: 6596 OF 2014}

¶16

Petition under Section^{151 cPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High court may be pleasedto stay} all further^{proceedingsunder Sec. 5 of the A.P.Protectionof Depositorsof} Financial Establishments^{Act, '1999 in CC No. 4 0f 2003 0n the file of the Hon'ble} Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge,city criminal courts,to the writ Petitioners, pending} disposal of the^{Writ Petition.}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRI S.ASHOKANAND KUMAR} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.'tTO 3: SRI VIZARATHALl, ASST PUBLIC} PROSECUTOR FOR GP^{FOR HOME} Counsel forthe Respondent^{No.4:SRI A.ANANDARAO (NOT PRESENT)} The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V, VENUGOPAL

¶19

w.P. o.5311of 20L4

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking the Mandamus declaring that Sec 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 does not apply to a loanee, Surety or Mortgagor and quash all proceedings initiated against the Writ petitioners, including the offence under Section 5 of the A.p. protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, L7/1999 taken on file in C.C.No.4 of 2003 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.

¶22

Heard Mr. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Vizarath Ali, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing learned Government pleader appearing on behalf oF Home for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and there is no representation on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.4.

¶23

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners have already been discharged by the competent Criminal Court, hence the cause in this writ petition does not survives for adjudication and no further orders are required in the writ petition.

a.ri r

Recording the said^{submission,the writ petition is}

¶28

dismissed as infructuous.^{No costs.}

¶29

Miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pending,shallstandclosed'}

¶30

SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// a ,'/ u'

¶31

SECTION OFFICER

¶32

¶33

I One CC to SRI S.ASHOK^{ANAND KUMAR, Advocate} [OPUC] 2 One CC to SRI A.ANANDA^{RAO, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶34

3 Two CCs to GP FOR^{HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶35

4 OhC CC tO SRI VIzARATH^{ALI, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR} [OPUC] E Two CD Copies

PSK.

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710312024

ORDER

WP.No.5311 o12014

t _ . .: i .r :--... <br>,1.,. i
.,,.
C.<br>1;
.=,"*
'ii
C- tl
\-
ll ..) ;1
\ 1. ...
.:,-.
..1-)
1r-

¶43

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION} AS INFRUCTUOUS^{WITHOUTCOSTS.}

¶44

M/s Venugopal Transport and Company v. The Govt. of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Venugopal Transport and Company v. The Govt. of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Amboji Buddaiah Vs Yede Kamalakar Rao

T.Gangadhar Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Pp and Another

Gotte Narsaiah Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Its P.P., H.C., Hyd.

Smt. Sannella Yadamma, R.R. Dist. and 3 Othrs Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Nazia Begum , Nasiya Sulthana, Nalgonda Dist and 4 Others Vs Prl Secy, Home Dept., Hyd and 4 Ot