Dismissed¶¶41

Sapavat Venkatesh v. State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC18 Aug 2025WP/2115/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, WP 2115/2016, Sapavat Venkatesh v. State of Telangana, SP Nalgonda and Dhanavath Sujatha; Look Out Circular dated 24.2.2015 in C.No.155/D5-DCRB/2015; non-withdrawal of LOC challenged as illegal and contrary to order dt 13.9.2015 in Crl.P.No. 8908 of 2015; interim application under S.151 CPC (WPMP 2683/2016); dismissed as infructuous on petitioner's own submission, no costs; Justice N. Tukaramji; decided 18.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Recording the submissions of both learned counsel that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication (and the learned Assistant Government Pleader taking no objection), the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no costs. ¶¶41

Sapavat Venkatesh Vs State of Telangana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

t32171

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE EIGHIEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:2115 OF 2016

¶9

Betwee n:

¶10

Sapavat Venkatesh, S/o: Sapavat Bichya Aged 28^{years R/} o^{London,United} Kingdom Presently Residing at H No 3-13-853, Shivammanagar,^{L B Nagar,} Hyderabad

¶11

..PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 State of Telangana represented by its Prrncipal Secretary,, Home Department At Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

2 Superintendent of Police,, Nalgonda District at Nalgonda

¶15

?) Dhanavath Sujatha, D/o Late Soma Naik^Aged 24^years F/^o Venkatadripalem Village, Miryalguda lVlandal, Nalgonda District

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 a Writ of lt4andamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of 2nd Respondent^{in not withdrawing} Circular Letter dt 24.2.2015 in C.No.¹ 55/D5-DCRB/2015^{issued againstthe} petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable and also contrary to the order dt. 13.9.2015 passed by this Honble Court in Crl.P.No. 8908^{of 2015 Awardcosts}

¶18

l.A. NO: I OF 2016( WPMP.^NO: 2683 OF²⁰¹⁶⁾

¶19

Petition under Section^'1 5'1 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{maybe pleased to} issue lnterim directions to^the 2nd Respondent to^{forthwith withdraw the Look}

¶20

Out Circular dt 24.2.2015 in C.No.155iD5-DCRB/2015 issued agalnst the petitioner. pending disposal of W.P.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: MS. SWATHI, REPRESENTING SRI K. RAGHUVEER REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'l and 2: SRI R. LAXMIKT\ JTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOMI:

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M. V. HANUMANTFI, , RAO

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

.:i

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.2l15 OF 2016

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This writ petition is hled seeking for the follorving relief:

¶31

"to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of 2nd Respondent in^not withdra\ring CircuLar Letter dt 24.2.2015 in C.No. I⁵ 5/D5-DCRB/2015 issued agai st the petitioner, as ilLegal, arbitrary, unsuslainable^and also contrary^to the order dt. 13.9.2015 passed by this onble Court in Crl.P.No. 8908 of2015 Award costs" -

¶32

Heard Ms.Swathi, leamed counsel representing Mr. K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel lor the petitioner and Mr R.Laxmikanth Reddy, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for

¶33

Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶35

cause in this Writ petition does not survive for

¶36

adjudication and seeks to dismiss this Writ Petition as infructuous.

¶37

Learned Assistant Goverrrment Pleader takes^no

¶38

objection to the same.

¶39

¶40

Recording the submissions of both he leamed

¶41

counsel, this Writ Petition is dismissed as inlr rctuous. No

¶42

costs

¶43

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if anl . shall stand

¶44

closed.

¶45

SD/- U. SUDHA ASS I JTANT^REGISTRAR

i_-

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To, 1. One CC to^{Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, Advocate[OPUQ]} i. i;; cct to-op^{ror {o.e, Higr' Court for the State of '-' langana'at} a iii,i'cti]Sii Hvderabad [OUTI^{N,'i 'v HanumanthaRao,Advocate[oPlJ)l}

¶51