Dismissed¶25

Bhukhya Ramesh, Hyderabad. v. the State of Ts.,Fire Services, Hyderabad, and Anr.

Telangana HC28 Jan 2025WP/22004/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; Telangana High Court at Hyderabad; W.P. No. 22004 of 2017; Bhukhya Ramesh v. State of Telangana; Fire Services Department; Deputy Director (Regional Fire Officer); proceedings dated 24-06-2017 vide Rc.No.01/TSFS and CDT/2017; Article 226 petition; Articles 14, 19 and 21; section 151 CPC suspension application; dismissal for efflux of time / cause does not survive; miscellaneous applications closed; no order as to costs; no merits adjudication; Pulla Karthik, J.; decided 28-01-2025.

What did the court decide?

On the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, due to efflux of time, the cause in the writ petition does not survive and it has become infructuous, the Court dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous. ¶25

Bhukhya Ramesh, Hyderabad. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings dated 24-06-2017 vide Rc.No.01/TSFS and CDT/2017 is illegal, arbitrary, against service rules and the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and whether those proceedings are liable to be set aside.

¶14

Court's answer

¶25

Ratio / Principle

As a sequel to the dismissal, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed, and there shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) — W.P. No. 22004 of 2017, Bhukhya Ramesh v. The State of Telangana and another, decided 28-01-2025 by Sri Justice Pulla Karthik. The petitioner, an Assistant District Fire Officer (Civil Defense), challenged the proceedings dated 24-06-2017 vide Rc.No.01/TSFS and CDT/2017 issued by the 2nd respondent (Deputy Director, Regional Fire Officer) as illegal, arbitrary, against service rules and the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, with a consequential prayer to set aside the said proceedings; I.A. No. 1 of 2017 under section 151 CPC sought suspension of those proceedings pending disposal. When the matter was called on 28-01-2025, learned counsel for the petitioner (Sri J. Rangachary representing Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy) submitted that, due to efflux of time, the cause in the writ petition did not survive and had become infructuous. The Court dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous, closed the pending miscellaneous applications as a sequel, and made no order as to costs. No adjudication was made on the merits of the challenge to the impugned proceedings.

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENry EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 22004 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bhukhya Ramesh, S/o: Bhukya Hariya, aged about 51^years, Occ:^Assistant Diskict Fire Officer Civi I Defense, Police Commissioner Office,^{PuraniHaveli,} Hyderabad. R|/o. H.NO. 5-5-486, Va nasthalipuram, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl., Secretary,^{Fire services Deportment'} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Deputy Director (Regional Fire Officer), Telangana,^{State Fire Services} and Civil Defense Training lnstitute, Hyderabad.

¶13

..,RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ order or direction more^particularly one in the^{nature of Writ} of f\ilandamus, by declaring the action of^{the 2ndrespondent in lssuing the} proceedings dated 24-06-2017 vide Rc.0'l/TSFS and CDTli2O17 as^illegal, arbitrary, against service rules and against^{the principlesof naturaljustice and} violative of Article 14,19 and 21 of Constitution^{of lndia, Consequently,to set aside} the proceedings of the 2nd respondent^{dated 24-06-2017vide Rc.01/TSFSand} cDTv2017.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2017^(WPM P. NO: 27099^{OF 20171}

¶16

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praylngthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Court. maybe pleasedto}

¶17

suspend the proce,:Cings of the 2nd respondent dated 24-06-2(.17 vide Rc. 01/ TSFS & CDTlt2Q17 forthwith pending disposal of W.p.

¶18

Counsel for ttre Petitioner: SRI J. RANGACHARY, REPRESENTTAIG SRI CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY

¶19

Counsel for tl're Respondents: GP FOR SERVTCES(HOME)

¶20

The Court marJe thr: following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTTCEPULLAKARTHIK}

¶22

W.P.No.2 2OO4 of^2Ol7

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Today, when the matter^{iscalled, Mr'J'Rangachary'} representing the^{learned counsel for petitioner Sri Challa Srinivasa} Reddy submits that due^{to efflux of time, the cause in the writ} petition does not survive^{and it has become infructous'}

¶25

In view of the^{same,the writ petition is dismissed as having} become infrucutous.^{As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications'} if any, pending in this^{writ petition stand closed' Thereshall be no}

¶26

order as to costs.

¶27

SD/.N.^SRTHARI AS ST T REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY//

¶28

S CTION^OFFICER

¶29

¶30

1 2 ff :BBJ1"'Er"lfi!"'J'['J&',i"["#il,$'d3:?l?"t3["'3L*orreransana' at Hvderabad [OU1^| 3 Two'CD^CoPies TJ GJP W

¶31

¶32

HIGH COURT