Dismissed¶37

Errabelli Vijay Kumar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Apr 2025WP/11770/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 11770 of 2025; High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad; Justice T. Vinod Kumar; 21.04.2025; writ of mandamus; complaint dated 04.01.2023; Nekkonda/Warangal police authorities; earlier W.P.No.3380 of 2023 liberty to seek modification; Articles 226, 14 and 21; petition withdrawn with liberty; dismissed as withdrawn, no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and to take appropriate action in terms of the liberty granted in W.P.No.3380 of 2023; petition dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. ¶37

Errabelli Vijay Kumar Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to act upon the petitioner's complaint dated 04.01.2023 by investigating and registering a crime against respondent Nos. 5 to 14, their inaction being alleged to be illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India

¶28

Ratio / Principle

On learning that the earlier writ petition (W.P.No.3380 of 2023) had been disposed of by granting only liberty to seek modification of the order, such that a fresh writ petition could not be filed, the Court granted the petitioner permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to take appropriate action in terms of the liberty granted in W.P.No.3380 of 2023.

¶36

Key takeaways

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, and there is no order as to costs.ratio¶37
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Special Original Jurisdiction), Justice T. Vinod Kumar, 21.04.2025 — Writ Petition No. 11770 of 2025 (Enabelli Vijay Kumar Rao v. State of Telangana and others): The petitioner, aged 89, of Redlawada Village and Mandal, Nekkonda, Warangal District, had prayed under Article 226 for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (police authorities) to act upon his complaint dated 04.01.2023 by investigating and registering a crime against respondent Nos. 5 to 14, alleging their inaction to be illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21, and contrary to the submission made in W.P.No.3380 of 2023. At the hearing it was pointed out that the earlier writ petition had been disposed of by granting only liberty to seek modification of the order if the authorities failed to act on the complaint dt.04.01.2023, so a fresh writ petition could not be filed. Learned counsel sought permission to withdraw; permission was granted with liberty to take appropriate action in terms of the liberty granted in W.P.No.3380 of 2023. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, were directed to stand closed.

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWENTY^{F}RST DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE T.VINODKUMAR}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO^.. 11770^{0F 2025}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Enabelli Vijay Kumar^{Rao,Slo. Late Narasimha..Rao,,Aged 89-y991t'.(!91io'} CiE;;i o6cl ngricutturiit,^{-nyo. H.No.1-'1} ,^{Redlawada-Villageand Mandal'} Nekkonda, Warangal^District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The Commissioner^{of Police, Warangal' Warangal District}

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner^{of Police (East), Warangal, Warangal District}

¶15

4- The Station House^{officer, Nekkonda Police Station, Nekkonda, Warangal} District

¶16

V. Vishwanarayana,^{S/o. Not knownto the.petitioner, Then Tahsildar'}

¶17

Nekkonda Maridat, now don't know where He is presently working

¶18

Bhaskar Reddy,^{S/o. not knownto the.petitioner' Revenuelnspector' now in} service in Dhahara^{Mandal, Warangal District}

¶19

BarlaRajendia^{pradad,s/o.not known to the petitioner. The then Village} ' nu""iud A.iiitani, nefotawada Village, Nekkonda Mandal, Warangal District. 8. Nallabala Sripal,^{S/o. Ailaiah, Age Major, Rio' Redlawada Village and Mandal'} Nekkonda, Warangal^District

¶20

g. Smt.Nalabala Upendra, Wo' Ailaiah, Age Maior,R/o^{Redlawada Villageand} Mandal, Nekkorida,^{Warangal District}

¶21

Nalabala Sudheer,^{S/o. Alloru' Age Major, Rl/o' Redlawada Villageand} Mandal, Ndkkonda,^{Warangal District}

¶22

1'l.TaqoruMooilis,S/o.Alloru,AgeMajor,Fl/oRedlawadaVillageandMandal' Ne-kkonda, Warangal^District.

¶23

l2.f aoaruVenkanna,^{S/o, Aielaiah, Age Major, R/o Redlawada Villageand} Maidal, Nekkonda,^{Warangal District}

¶24

¶25

l3.Polipelli Nara ;rna. Sr" fglu?fl.Wg, Age Major,RIo. Redtarva,Ja Viilage and Mandal, N,-,r<k r,.rda, Warangal diitn-ct"-^'..9,v"'!vv.

¶26

'o l3flfl:Xfl,lltj ;frJti:?l,J.^{Ase Major,Rr/oRedrawadai/ilase and Mandar,}

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition urce r\rticle 226 of the Constitution_ of lndia praying that in the circumstances state j in the affidavit filed therewith, the Fliqh Court may be pleased to issue a V /'t, Order or Direction more particularly rlne in the nature of Writ of Mandamu:; Jr rlaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for not taking any action upon rr> :rmplaint dated 04.01.2023 given by the pr:tit oner according to the procedure e st: rlished by law and acting contrary to the subrnission made in the W.P.No.3380 r:f :)023 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutio n a I a nd violation of Article 1 4, 21 of llte l'rnstitution of lndia and consequenfly direct:he respondent Nos.2 to 4 to act uprr 'r^{the complaint dated} 04.01.2023 given by tre petitioner by investigating and r:,1i 'r:ring the crime against the respondent Nos.t, to i 4.

¶29

Counsel for the petit rner: SRI KIRAN KUMAR B

¶30

Counsel for the Res;p rndent Nos.1 to 4: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Res p,>ndent Nos.S to 14:__-

¶31

The Court made the f, ,[owing: ORDER

¶32

¶33

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{T. VINOD KUMAR}

¶34

Writ ition No. LL770 0f 2o25

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

After making initial^{submissions,on this Court pointingout} that the earlier Writ^{Petition has beendisposedof by granting} only liberty to the^{petitionerto seek modificationof the order,if} the respondents-authorities^{fail to take action on the complaint of} the^petitioner dt.04.01.2023^{and as such the petitioner cannot flle} fresh Writ Petition,^{learned counsel for the petitionerseeks} permission of the Court to withdraw^{the Writ Petitionwith liberty} to the^{petitioner to take appropriateaction in termsof the liberty} granted in W.P.No.3380 of 2023.

¶37

Granting liberty as^{sought for, this Writ Petitionis} dismissed as withdrawn.^{No orderas to costs.}

¶38

Consequently, miscellaneous^{petitions pending,if any,shall}

¶39

stand closed.

¶40

//TRUE^COPY//

¶41

s D/.N.^SRIHART DEPUTY^REGISTRAR SECTION^OFFICER

¶42

To, 1 one CC^{to Sri Kiran Kumar B,AdvocateIOPUC} of Telangana,^at h Court^{for the Sta} 2 Two CCs^{to GP for Home, Hig} Hvderabad [oU^Tl J Two CD Co^pres TJ LS c{0-

HIGH COUFI'I'

DATED:21 lcv\12025

ORDER

WP.No.11770 af 2025

-a4
1tJ! ' ,1./. ) .
?
I llIlli or
:/
'' '.,./

¶49