Fishermen Cooperative Society Vallur v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Jun 2025WP/15243/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection to fishermen cooperative society for harvesting fish in Oora Cheruvu (Narsingi Mandal, Medak District); writ of mandamus against SP Medak, Dy.SP Toopran, CI Ramayanpet, SHO Narsingi; Articles 14, 21 and 226; Section 151 CPC interim application (I.A. No. 1 of 2025); petition closed without costs as police aid provided post-filing; cause did not survive for consideration; Telangana High Court, 11-06-2025, T. Vinod Kumar, J.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief adjudicated; the Writ Petition was closed as the grievance stood redressed (police aid having been provided after filing), with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to stand closed. ¶¶37

Fishermen Cooperative Society Vallur Vs The State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of Respondents 4 to 7 in providing police protection to the petitioner Society on 14-05-2025 for harvesting fish in Oora Cheruvu was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and whether Respondents 4 to 7 ought to be directed to provide adequate police protection to the members of the Society for harvesting fish in Oora Cheruvu. +1 more

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

On the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents had provided police aid after the filing of the Writ Petition and the grievance stood redressed, the Court recorded the submission and closed the Writ Petition, with no order as to costs.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

Consequent upon closure of the Writ Petition, all miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, were directed to stand closed.ratio¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Fishermen Cooperative Society Vallur (Medak District), through its Chief Promoter, filed W.P. No. 15243 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondents 4 to 7 (Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police Toopran, Circle Inspector Ramayanpet and SHO Narsingi) in providing police protection on 14-05-2025 for harvesting fish in Oora Cheruvu as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21, and seeking a direction for adequate police protection within 15 days from 21-05-2025; I.A. No. 1 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC sought the same relief pending disposal. At the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to filing, the respondents had provided police aid and the cause did not survive. The High Court (T. Vinod Kumar, J.) recorded the submission, closed the Writ Petition with no order as to costs, and directed that miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. No issue was decided on merits.

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH^{DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETITI^{ON NO: 15243OF 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Fishermen Cooperative^{SocietyVallur, VallurVr]909,} !arsingi^{Mandal, Medak} District, Rep. by its^{Chief PrombterD. MaheshS/o D. Thimmaiah, Aged- aboul} +o v"ir=,-5"J.'Fisherman,^{R:/oH.No.1-26,Vallur Village,NarsingiMandal,} Medak District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Animal.Husbandry,} Oiiry Gvetopmeniand^{FisheridsDepartment' Secretariat Buildings,} Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector,^{Medak District at lvledak-}

¶13

The District Fisheries^{Officer, MedakDistrict.}

¶14

The Superintendent^{of Police, Medak Districtat lvledak'}

¶15

The Deputy Superintendent^{of Police, Toopran at Toopran,Medak Dis{rict'}

¶16

circle lnspector of Police,^{Ramanyanpetat Ramayanpet, MedakDistrict.}

¶17

The Station House^{Officer, NarsingiPolceStation' At Narsingi, Medak} District.

¶18

The Tahsildar, Narsingi^{Mandal, t/edak District}

¶19

Vallur Gram Panchayat,^{Rep. by its Secretary' Vallur Village, Narsingi} Mandal, Medak^District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article^{226 of lhe constitution of lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavit filed therewith, the High courtmay be pleased} to issue an appropriate^{writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the nature} of, writ of Mandamus^{declaringthe inactionof the respondents 4 to 7 in providing} police protection to the^{petitionersocietyon 14-05-2025 for harvestingthe fishin} bor" ih"rruu^{as arbitrary,illegal and in violationof Articles 14 and 21 of the} constitution of^{lndia and consequentlydirectthe respondents 4 to 7 to provide} adequate^{police protectionto the membersof the FishermencooperativeSociety}

¶22

Vallur, vallur Village,^{Narsingi Mandal,Medak District for harvesting the fish in oora} Cheruvu within^{15 daysfrom todayi.e. lrom21-O5-2O25}

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayinglhat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to direct} the respondents⁴ to^{7 to provide adequate police protection tc the members of the} Fishermen cooperative^{societyVallur, Vallur Village,Nars ngi Mandal, Medak} District for harvesting the fish^{in oora cheruvu within15 days from today i.e. from} 21-05-2025,^pending disposal^{of the mainwrit petition}

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. VEDAVIKAS M V}

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1&3:GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.2&8: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.4,5,6&7: GP FOR HOME}

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent^{NO.9: SRI K. PRADEEPREDDY SC FOR GP}

¶30

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶31

-c_--ry-7r

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR P N No.15243 of 2 2

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Learned counsel for the^petitioner appearing on^behalf of

¶35

the petitioner submits that subsequent to^{the filing} of^{the Writ} Petition, the respondents-authorities^{have provided policeaid to} the^petitioner, and thus, the^{cause in the presentWrit Petition} does not survive for consideration by^{this Court and accordingly,} the grievance ofthe^petitioner stands^redressed.

¶36

Recording the aforesaid submission, the Writ Petition^is

¶37

closed. No order as to costs.

¶38

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

¶39

stand closed.

¶40

//TRUE COPY/i

¶41

SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR fuS EETION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

OneCCto SRl.^{VEDAVIKASM VAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶44

One CCto SRI^{K. PRADEEP REDDY SC FOR GP} [OPUC]

¶45

3.TwoCCstoGPFoRANIMALHUSBANDARY,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana. [OUT]

¶46

4.TwoCCstoGPforRevenue,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶47

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

¶48

Two CD CoPies

KKS GJP \t-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110612025

"r,.1ft
.4'e'
i:,.:.
(
i.) 1 D SEP 2025 2:
, }./|11 C-:
..+
-.. - ' sr,4rcrr!i

¶53

ORDER

¶54

WP.No.15243 ot 2025

¶55

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

\ .c1t\a-
Yr--{-ff
-\l "

Fishermen Cooperative Society Vallur v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fishermen Cooperative Society Vallur v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Ismail Biyabani @ Fruit Mohammed Vs State of Telangana

Kunrapu Ashok Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Dastagir Shareef Vs The State of Telangana

P. Srirama Chandra Murthy Vs The Government of Telangana

K . Vijayalakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

Sure Srinivasa Rao Vs The Station House Officer