Porika Roopsingh Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Porika Roopsingh Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

13217 1

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

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SR! JUSTTCE N.TUSARAMJ|

WRIT PETITION NO: 13026 OF 2017

Between:

Porika Roopsingh, S/o. Venkatram, Aged 22 Years, occupation Coolie, R/o. Madhu Thanda,H/o. Komatipally Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal (Urban) District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1 The State of Telangana,, Home Department, rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2 Executive tvlagistrate & Tahsi ldar,, Hasanparthy⁽ M ), Warahgal (U rban ) District

Prohibition and Excise lnspector, Prohibition and Excise Station Hanamkonda, Warangal.

.RESPONDENTS

.^{Petition under Article226 of the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the order in It/C.No.2112017 dated- 23-03-2017 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal (Urban) District, in directing to pay an amount of penalty of Rs. 1,O0,OOO/- or show cause why the petitioner should not be adjudged for imprisonment until the expiry of the bond period is highly arbitrary, bad and illegal.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 16187 OF 2017)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of tlle petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay

'-1..:-: .

of all further proceedingsⁱⁿ order^{tvlC.No.21 12017dated: 23'03-2017 passed by} the Execulive Magistrate,^{Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal(Urban) District.}

Counsel fr>r the Petitioner : SRI B.MURALIDHAR

Counsel frrr the Respondents No.1&2^{: SRI R.LAXMIKANTHREDDY,} AGP FOR HOME

Counsel f,rr the Respondent No.3^{: SRIARUN KUMAR,} AGP FOR PROHIBITION &^EXCISE

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI ON 201

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under^{Article 226 of Constitution of lndia}

seeking the following relief:

"...fo rssue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus,^{declaringthat the order in MC} No.21/2017 dated 23.03.2017^passed by the^{ExecutiveMagistrate,} Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal Urban^{District in directing to pay an} amount of^penalty of Rs.^1.00,000/ or^{showcause why the petitioner} shoutd not be adjudged for imprisonment^{until the expiryof the bond} period is highly arbitrary, bad and illegal and to^grant such^otherrelief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Coutt^{deems tit and proper in the} circumstances of the case....^"

Heard Mr.B.Muralidhar, learned counsel^{for thepetitioner,}

\ \

Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant^{Government Pleader for Home} appearing for respondent Nos.1^{and 2, and Mr.Arun Kumar, learnedAssistant} Government Pleader for Prohibition^{and Excise appearingfor respondent} No.3.

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner would submit that as the respondent} authority has issued a show cause^{noticedirecting to penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-} in pursuance of the bond executed^{by the petitionerand challengingthe} procedure, this petition has been filed. This Court^{having consideredthe} pleading granted interim direction on¹¹ .04.2017 directing^{the respondents} not to arrest the^{petitioner pursuanceto the impugned show causenotice.} Thus, there was^protection and^{prayed for passing appropriateorders.}

Learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for Prohibition and Excise} submits that after the interim order,^{no proceedingsin MC.No.21of 2017 have}

2

taken placr> and due to lapse of time, the period of bond has been elapsed

Thus, the cause does not survive for adjudication.

I have perused the materials on record.

Having regard to the submissions and as the show cause notice was passed on the bond executed by the petitioner and the period of bond has been elapsed and as there was no further execution/extension of the bond, nothing surrives in this petition for adjudication. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismisserl as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closgd

SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY
ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY/

OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI B.MURALIDHAR, Advocate.

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the Telangana at Hydr-'rabad. [OUT]

Two CCs to GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

Two CD Copies. BSK

w BIVI

d

?

I

HIGFI COURT

DATI=D :0110912025

ORDER

j{
THE S
()
1,2 Fi:B 207.9
*
)t

WP.No.13026 ot 2017

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

4 ,fA
trr-