Vemula Venkateshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Vemula Venkateshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' interference with the petitioner's milk business in the course of investigation into Cr.No.494/2025 (dt.20.03.2025), allegedly without following due process of law, warranted a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Taking note that the petitioner had already availed the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him, the filing of the present Writ Petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is 'clearly an act of suppression'.

Key takeaways

It is a settled position of law that a person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and make complete disclosure.ratio¶36
Inasmuch as the petitioner has approached this Court by resorting to suppression, this Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with any relief in the present Writ Petition.ratio¶39
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, imposing exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee within four (04) weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.No.11142 of 2025 — Vemula Venkateshwar Rao v. The State of Telangana et al. (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Special Original Jurisdiction, decided 15-04-2025, Justice T. Vinod Kumar). The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring illegal the action of Respondent No.4 (SHO, Petbasheerabad Police Station, Cyberabad) in interfering with his milk business pursuant to FIR/Cr.No.494 of 2025 dt.20.03.2025 without following due process of law, alleging the action violated Articles 14 and 21. At admission stage, the learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that the petitioner was in fact arrayed as an accused in that crime, had been issued notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, and had already availed the remedy of a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS seeking quashment of the same FIR — a fact suppressed while filing the writ petition. Holding such invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, coupled with the non-disclosure, to be 'clearly an act of suppression', and applying the settled position that a person invoking Article 226 jurisdiction must come with clean hands and make complete disclosure, the Court held that the petitioner, having approached it by resorting to suppression, was not entitled to any relief. The Writ Petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee within four (04) weeks; pending miscellaneous petitions (including the interim application under Section 151 CPC) were ordered closed.

_[³¹⁶⁶ ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO:^'11142 OF 2025

Between:

Vemula Venkateshwar Rao, S/o.Ramulu Aged about^{45 years, Occ . Milk} Business Fl/o.H.No.6-81iA, Chandru Gonda Village and^{Mandal Bhadradri} Kothagudem District.

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary^{Home Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The Director General of Police, Lakidikapool,^Hyderabad.

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate^Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.

The Station House Officer, Petbasheerabad Police^{Station Cyberabad, Ranga} Reddy District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more^{particularlyonein} the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring^{the action of the RespondentNo.4 in} interfering with the milk business activity of^{the petitionerwithout following due} process of law pursuant to the registration of crime in^{FIR No'494 ol 2025'} dt.2O.O3.2025 on the file of 4th respondent^{police stationwithout namingthe} petitioner as accused as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional^{and violationof Article} 14 and 21 of Constitution of^{lndia and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.3} and 4 not to interfere with^{the milk business activityof the petitioner without} following due^process of law.

lA NO: 1 OF 202s

Petition^r-rnrk:r !lection 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circunlst;lnces statedin} the affidavit filed irr :; r:port of the^petition, the High Court^{may be p1s25sdto direct} the Respondent I'bs i and 4 not to interfere with the^{petitioner'srmilk business} activity at Chandlr-r rr.rda Village and Mandal, Bhadradri^{Kothagudem District} without following c r e I rocess of law,^pending disposal of the abcve writ^petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KRISHNA JUPALLI

Counsel for the R.e s,rondents: GP FOR HOME

The Court made the lollowing: ORDER

o

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

W.P.No. Lll42 of 2o25

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondentsauthorities are interfering with his milk business in the name of investigation into Cr.No.49412025, dt.2o.O3.2025, without following due process of law, which action of the respondentsauthorities it is contended as highiy illegal and arbitrary.

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondents submits that based on the complaint made by one tekhya Sree Lingam, a case uide Cr.No.49412025 has been registered, wherein the petitioner is also arrayed as an accused.

Learned Government Pleader would further submit that on the petitioner being arrayed as accused in the aforesaid crime registered on the frle of the 4ff respondent, he has also been issued with notice+rnder Section 35(3) of BNSS.

2

A

Leerr <: I Government Pleader further submits. that^the petition.cr rir being arrayed as accused, has a.lsri rrvailed^the remedy rLtrrlt Section 482 of Cr.P.C.l528 of BNSIi rrir.le Criminal Petitior ltro.:i )':; 1 of 2025 seeking to quash the aforcsrtid crime; and that sltpp r': I ,,ing the aforesaid fact, has filed the p esent^Writ Petition.

I ha;,' i,ken note of the respective submissior s^mr1de.

7 - Hrlv rp ,:gard to the submissions made as abo"e, and taking note of th3 f L :t that the petitioner having already^{a ra:ledremedy} under Sec tr o t 482 of Ct.P.Cl528 of BNSS sceking^{rp.as,hingof FIR} uide Cr .1. t' . 1' I12025 registered against the petttiorLer, iling of the presenl- Wr¹ :\rtition invoking the extraordinary jurisrli< tion of this Court trn <.e r' ,',rticle 226 of the Constitution of Ind a. ir; clearlv an act of srLp le .:;ion.

it ir; r : l-tled position of law that a^pc rsorr ir voking the jurisdic:l.io n r 1 this Court under Article 226 of the Cor stitution^of India has o :ome with clean hands and should^rr al:.e complete disclosu rc^.

9- lneLsr:t :h as the petitioner has approa<:hec ,hi s Court by resortinq trr ,;uppression, this Court is of the^r ier i, that the

3

petitioner is not entitled for being granted with any relief in the present Writ Petition.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/ -(Rupees Ten thousand) PlVable to the High Court Legal Services Committee within a^period of four^{(04) weeks} from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any,^pendingsha1l

stand closed

MEMORAN DUM^{OF COSTS}

w.P.NO .337920F²⁰²³

Costs Quantified^{by Hon'ble Court(That} the Petitioner^{herein are directedto pay} costs of^{Rs.'l 0,0001 (RuPeesTen} Thousand Onlv) to^{the High CourtLegal} Services Com-miftee,^{High Courtfor the} State of Telangana,^{Hyderabad, within four} (4) Weeks from the^{dateof order.}

Rs. Ps

10,000-00

TOTAL

10,000-00

SD/.P, CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUW REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 The Secretary,^{High Court for the State of Telangna, at HYderabad.} 2 One CC to Sri^{KrishnaJupalli,Advocate [OPUC]} h Court for the^{Stateof Telangana,at} 3 Two CCs to^{GP for Home, Hig} Hyderabad [OUTI 4 Two CD Copies TJ LS tr

HIGH COURT

DATED:151A4t2025

ORDER

WP.No.11142 ot 2025

{t $ f4 14:
(
,r, J 2t nit 2y6 ($o(z
A
*
t
-o€sj :r- ,,, , .

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTIS (+ r16,,,-

d