Dismissed

Young Leaders Rajyadhikara Porata Samithi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Nov 2025WP/18718/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to permit a public meeting after police permission was cancelled. The court noted that the event had already passed, rendering the relief redundant. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous without costs.

What did the court decide?

None; Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous.

Young Leaders Rajyadhikara Porata Samithi Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDER.ABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 18718 OF 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1. Young Leaders Rajyadhikara Porata Samithi, (short name Young Leaders), a Society registered under Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 bearing No. 31712018, having its registered office at Flat No. 5O2, Major Residency, B Block. First Lancer Road, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Rept. By its President, P. Rohith Reddy S/o P. Mttai Reddy

¶10

Young Leaders Foundation, a Society registered under Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 bearing No. 58212011, having its registered office at H.No. 1€-138, Raghavendra Colony, Tandur, Mkarabad District .501 141, Rept. By its President, P. Rohith Reddy S/o P. Mttal Reddy

¶11

P. Rohith Reddy, S/o. P. Mftal Reddy Aged about 33 Years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. Plot No. 66 Sri Laxmi Nagar Colony, Manikonda Jagir, Ranga Reddy District ' 5oo 089

¶12

...PETraoNERs

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, Mkarabad District

¶16

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad, Vikarabad

¶17

Station House Officer, P.S. Vikarabad Town, Vikarabad District

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of Respondents contained in the press note dt. 05.06.2018 cancelling the^{police permission} dt. 28.05.2018 enabling the 1st Petitioner to conduct a public meeting between 3.00 PM and 7.00 PM at Chigulapally Ramesh grounds, Vikarabad Town as arbitrary, irrational and violative of principles of natural lustice and consequently direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct the public meeting without any obstruction.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents forthwith to allow the Petitioners to organize / conduct the meeting between 3.00 PM and 7.00 PM at Chigulapally Ramesh grounds, Vikarabad Town on 07.06.2018 in terms of the police permission dt. 28.05.20i9 pending disposal of writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.RAV| MAHENDER (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following: OROER

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SR!JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶26

wRlT PETITION No.18718 OF 2018

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

¶29

"Io issue an appropriate Writ, Order or dircction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring lhe action of respondents contained in the press nole dated 05.06.N18 cancellittg the plice permission dated 28.05.2018 enabting the ld petitioner to conduct a public meeting between 3:0O p.m. and 7:00 p.m. at Chigulapally Rarnesh grounds, Vikarabad Town as aftitrary, inational and vblative of pinciples of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct the public meeting without any obstruction

¶30

None appeared on behalf of the^petitioner.

¶31

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits

¶32

that, as the prayer relates to cancellation of^{policepermission}

¶33

dated 28.05 2018, the cause of action has, by efflux of time,

¶34

become infructuous.

¶35

4. I have perused the material on record.

¶36

¶37

The petitioner has sought a direction against the respondent police authorities regarding the cancellation of permission dated 28 05.2018, which had enabled the 1st petitioner to conduct a public meeting between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. However, by efflux of time, it is evident that the relief sought has become redundant, and no effective adjudication can now be undertaken with respect to the said event.

¶38

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶39

No order as to costs.

¶40

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶41

closed.

¶42

SRINIVASA^REDDY sD/- sRl siA}.IT^REGISTRAR

¶43

/TTRUE^COPY//

¶44

ECTION^OFFICER

¶45

I To roPucl 21 ?ffi 33J",,'3f^{[ 34"'] 8$E5ll 3.' 3 ;f liSfl?} SIet€ of^{Telangana' at} Hrderabad [oUTl 3 Trfuo CD^CoPies PSK. BM

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411112025

ORDER

WP.No.18718 of 2018

t
1 HES
u '
o5
ir 2 E ttfiq .rl
\' y
'._1..t lr:3 nrtrll
-- : .:-i-. --'

¶53

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

G hPR(OA *

Young Leaders Rajyadhikara Porata Samithi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Young Leaders Rajyadhikara Porata Samithi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reddypet Swamy, Vs State of Telagana

Yadandla Gattaiah Vs State of Telangana

Jannu Murali Mohan, Vs The Govt. of Telangana

Akula Mallesham Vs Guda Mahender Reddy

G.v.Ramana Reddy Vs The State Of Telangana

Safdar Mirza Vs Sardar Avtar Singh