Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

S. Yadagiri Vs The Regional Director — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Telangana HC
2025
S. Yadagiri Vs The Regional DirectorS. Yadagiri v. The Regional Director

Dismissed¶35

S. Yadagiri v. The Regional Director

Telangana HC5 Feb 2025WA/148/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal No. 148 of 2025, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Division Bench: Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul, author; Renuka Yara, J.), decided 05-02-2025. Party-in-person S. Yadagiri (Stores Department, Employee No. 661686, Indian Airlines/Air India) challenged the Single Judge's order dated 04-12-2024 in W.P. No. 3167 of 2024 holding the petition not maintainable against respondent No. 3, following R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1955). Appeal dismissed without costs; liberty to pursue appropriate remedy; maintainability not argued despite requests in English and Telugu. Respondents represented by V. Uma Devi, Standing Counsel for Southern Region. Keywords: maintainability, writ appeal, Clause 15 Letters Patent, Air India, party-in-person.

What did the court decide?

No relief on merits; writ appeal dismissed with liberty reserved to the party-in-person to avail appropriate remedy under the law; no costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

Why is it important?

As the writ petition was dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability and the party-in-person did not address the Court on maintainability despite being requested on more than one occasion in two languages (English and Telugu), the Court found no reason to enter into the merits of the case. ¶32

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief on merits; writ appeal dismissed with liberty reserved to the party-in-person to avail appropriate remedy under the law; no costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the intra-court writ appeal could be heard on the merits when the underlying writ petition (W.P. No. 3167 of 2024) was dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability and the appellant did not address the Court on the question of maintainability.

Court's answer

As the writ petition was dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability and the party-in-person did not address the Court on maintainability despite being requested on more than one occasion in two languages (English and Telugu), the Court found no reason to enter into the merits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Appeal is dismissed.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the party-in-person to avail appropriate remedy under the law, with no order as to costs; interlocutory applications, if any pending, also stand closed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Clause 15, Letters Patent) against Single Judge's order dated 04.12.2024 in W.P. No. 3167 of 2024, whereby the writ petition was held not maintainable against respondent No. 3 on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1955): the party-in-person appellant, though repeatedly requested in English and Telugu, did not address the Division Bench on the question of maintainability; the Bench found no reason to enter into the merits since the writ petition had been dismissed solely on maintainability. Writ Appeal dismissed; liberty reserved to the party-in-person to avail appropriate remedy under the law; no costs; pending interlocutory applications closed. (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Renuka Yara, JJ., 05-02-2025.)

A

[³⁴⁴⁶¹

HIGH COURT FOE IHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

. WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAYOF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

WRITAPPE AL NO: 148 oF 2025

writ Appear under crause 15 0f the Letters patent preferred against the order dated 04-1 2-2024 in W .p No. 31 67 of 2}24on the fite of the High Court.

Between:

s- Yadagiri, (stores Department), Emproyee No. 661686 atHyderabad 45,240 fJrtf i emptoyee No., tndian Airtine. cotnv, rilu,i6o*unp"rry, Hyderabad

AND

... APPE L LAN TAAIRIT PETI TION E RS

Director, (South) Air tndia, Southern Region, Meenabakam

, I[:,f,:?"rat

The General Manaoer Personal, (HR) Air lndia, Southern Region, [/eenabakam Cherinai

The Dy General Manaoer, MMD Material Management Department (South) Air I ndia, Southern ne!ion, u;;lorri"iir' 6i"ii,7i"

The Dy General Manager Finance, Air lndia, Hyderabad, Shamshabad

TheDepartmental Head, MMD Air lndia, Southern Region, Meenabakam,

6- .The The Executive Director Finance, Head quarters Gurgaon, Haqyana Delhi 7. General Manaoer Finance, NR and pension Air India, Gurgao6n, Head Quarters Delhi, HaiTana

t l:iff:'.,j3:l%"g3,,y6:iny", Finance, NR and pension Air rndia, Gursaon

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appeltant: SRI S__yA-DAGlRl(pARTy_lN-pERSON) Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. V. UMA'DiVi;Standing Counset for Southern Region. The Court Delivered the following: JUDGMENT

-. I T

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY^PAUL

AND

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA^YARA

WRIT APPEAI No.148 of 2025

JUDGMENT^lPer the Hon'ble^{the Acting Chief JusticeSujoA PauL)'.}

Hr:eLrd Sri S. Yadagiri,^{party-in-person.}

2 . Thi s Intra-Court appea,l assails the^{<;rder dated} 04.12.2024 passed in W.P.3167^{of 2024, whereby learned Single} Judge, based on a^judgment of the^{Supreme Court in Mr.R.S.} Madireddy v. Union of Indial, opined that^{the said Writ Petition} ',l,as^{not maintainable against respondent No.3.}

I I

The party-in-person made efforts to take us^{to the merits} of the cas,:. On more than one^occasion, /n^{two different} languages i.e., English and Telugu,^{he was requested to address} on the question of maintainability but sadly,^{he has not} addressed 1-hLe Court on the^{question of maintainab ility. Hence,} we find no reason to enter into the merits of the^c:asebecause the Writ l?etition was dismissed solely on the^{ground of} maintainability based upon the aforesaid^SupremeCourt judgment.

1 2024 sCC OnLine SCl955

2

4 The Writ Appeal is dismissed. However,^liberty

.'t

reserved to the party-in-person to^{avail appropriateremedy}

under the law. No costs.

Interlocutory applications, if^{any pending,shallalso}

stand closed.

SD/- M. MANJULA E UTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

To,

1 One CC to Sri^{S. Yadagiri, EmployeeNo' 661686 at Hyderabad 45'240Air} No., lndiin Airlines-Colony,^{New Bowenpally, Hyderabad500}

0't fnOL 1⁽ Party-in-Person)[OPUCI"rpfoy""

2 o""'cc ii, smt. v.^{uii,a Devi,SC for Southern Region [OPUC]} 3 Two CD Copies

TJ GJP

e

HIGH COURT'

HACJ &

RY,J

DATED:0510212025

JUDGMENT

WA.No.148 of²⁰²⁵

-14'
.r. 't i i:j s? {I €
/;7?'-
J
?1 rt;,1 pg25
zo
t

DISMISSING THE^{WRIT APPEAL}

WITHOUT COSTS

1l'

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the intra-court writ appeal could be heard on the merits when the underlying writ petition (W.P. No. 3167 of 2024) was dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability and the appellant did not address the Court on the question of maintainability.¶32
The court held
As the writ petition was dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability and the party-in-person did not address the Court on maintainability despite being requested on more than one occasion in two languages (English and Telugu), the Court found no reason to enter into the merits of the case.ratio¶32

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

R.S. Madireddy v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶30
2024 sCC OnLine SCl955 · Who else cites this

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Letters PatentClause 15¶8

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 04.12.2024 in W.P. No. 3167 of 2024 whereby the learned Single Judge held the writ petition not maintainable against respondent No. 3, following a Supreme Court judgment in R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India.¶30
High Court for the State of Telangana (learned Single Judge) · 04-12-2024
Prior proceeding
Writ Petition No. 3167 of 2024 was dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability (against respondent No. 3), based upon the Supreme Court judgment in R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India.¶32
Prior proceeding
Intra-court Writ Appeal No. 148 of 2025 preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04-12-2024 in W.P. No. 3167 of 2024.¶8

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
S. Yadagiri (Stores Department, Employee No. 661686)¶29
S. Yadagiri
respondent
Respondents (officials of Air India, Southern Region, including Director (South), General Manager Personnel (HR), Deputy General Managers and Executive Director Finance)¶22
V. Uma Devi

Coram

AI extract

Sujoy Paulauthor¶5
Renuka Yaramember¶6

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Telangana HC
Decided on: 5 Feb 2025 · February
Registered: 3 Feb 2025
Case no.: WA/148/2025
CNR: HBHC010688382024
Bench: Sujoy Paul Renuka Yara
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Writ Appeal

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Sujoy Paul Renuka Yara

Mohammed Arifuddin Khan Rashed Vs Vegesna Praveen Varma
4 Feb 2025
M/s. Tpl-Sucg Consortium Vs Union of India
4 Feb 2025
Telangana Grameena Bank (Tgb) Vs Ch. Chandramouli
4 Feb 2025
Sri Narayana Sambarapu Vs The State of Telangana
5 Feb 2025
M/s. Iris Meditech Vs The State of Telangana
5 Feb 2025
M/s. Adi Shakthi Contructions Vs The Assistant Commissioner
5 Feb 2025

Cite this judgement

S. Yadagiri v. The Regional Director, WA/148/2025 (TEL), decided on 5 February 2025.

The High Court for the State of Telangana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

R.S. Madireddy v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶30

Open Authorities

Statutes1

Letters PatentClause 15

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order dated 04.12.2024 in W.P. No. 3167 of 2024 whereby the learned Single Judge held the writ petition not maintainable against respondent No. 3, following a Supreme Court judgment in R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India.High Court for the State of Telangana (learned Single Judge) · 04-12-2024
Writ Petition No. 3167 of 2024 was dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability (against respondent No. 3), based upon the Supreme Court judgment in R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India.
Intra-court Writ Appeal No. 148 of 2025 preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04-12-2024 in W.P. No. 3167 of 2024.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Sujoy Paul and Renuka Yara

Parties & counsel