Macherla Kishan Kumar Goud S/0. Rajaiah, Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Macherla Kishan Kumar Goud S/0. Rajaiah, Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in not ordering re-enquiry into the corruption charges levelled against respondent Nos. 6 and 7, and in not setting aside the enquiry report dated 10-06-2015 submitted by respondent No. 5, was illegal and arbitrary, and whether the respondents should be directed to order a re-enquiry.

Court's answer

In view of respondent No.5's specific counter-affidavit statement that he had conducted a detailed enquiry and found the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent Nos.6 and 7 to be false, the Court was of the considered view that the Writ Petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to order re-enquiry into corruption charges against respondent No. 6 (Inspector) and respondent No. 7 (Sub-Inspector) of Dharmasagar Police Station, and to set aside the enquiry report dated 10-06-2015 submitted by respondent No. 5 (Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Special Branch, Warangal Urban) to respondent No. 4 (Commissioner of Police, Warangal). Per the counter affidavit, the Superintendent of Police, Warangal Rural had entrusted the enquiry arising from the petitioner's complaint dated 23.03.2015 to respondent No. 5, who examined twenty-one witnesses in respect of thirteen corruption complaints and found the allegations against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to be false; the counter also stated that the petitioner was prosecuted in six criminal cases. Holding the petition devoid of merit, the Court dismissed it without costs and closed pending miscellaneous applications.

[³⁴⁸⁶ ]

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

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEX/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO: 26802 OF 2015

Between:

Macherla Kishan Kumar Goud S/0. Rajaiah, Occ Advocate, R/o. Narayanagiri village, Dharmasagar Mandal, Warangal District.

..PETITIONER

AND

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

2

Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad,^-

3 lnspector General of Police, North zone, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

4 Commissroner of Police. Warangal, Warangal Distirct.,^-

5 Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Special Branch, Warangal Urban, Warangal District.

6 A.Rajaiah, lnspector of Police, Dharmasagar Police Station, Warangal District. 7 A.Raghavender, Sub lnspector of Police, Dharmasagar Police Station, Warangal District.

..RESPONDENTS

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not ordering reenquiry in respect of the corruption charges leveled against respondents 6 and⁷ by setting aside the report dated 10-06-2015 submitted by the 5th respondent to the 4th respondent is highly arbitrary, bad and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to order re-enquiry in respect of the corruption charges leveled against respondents 6 and 7.

l-A. NO: 1OF 2015^(WP MP. NO: 34A02 OF 2015)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r:umstanc:es stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cc,r r. may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 lo 4 to order re-enquiry in res )i-,ct of the corruption charges leveled against respondents 6 and 7.

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.PRABHAKAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B.SRINIVAS, ASST.G^I FOR HOME

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.268O2 of 2015

ORDER

Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, lc:rrned counscl on recorcl appearing for thc petitioner and Sri Sriclh:rr Bhuvernagiri, learnecl Assistant Government Plea<ler for Hornc appcanrtg fbr respondeut Nos. I to 5.

This Writ Petition is f rled seeking to dcclzrrc thc :rction of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not ordcring re enrluiry in respect ol^Lhe charges of corruption leveled against rcspondent Nos.6 :rnd 7^b-1' 531,i,r* aside Lhe report dated 10.06.2015 submittecl bl, respondcnt No 5 to respondent No.4, as illegal, arbitrary and consequentl)', to direcI the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to order re-enquiry in respect of the chargcs^of corruption levelled against respondent Nos.6 ancl^7.

The rcspondent No.5 filed counter affidavit, in n4-rich it is specifically stated that, on receipt oI complaint dated 23.03.2O^{15 lrom} the petitioner for conducting an impartial cnquiS', thc Superirrtendcnt of Police, Warangal Rural, entrusted the^e nquiry^{to respondent No.S-the} lhen Deputy Superintendent of^Police, City^{Speciat Brzrnch. It is st,rted} that the Special Branch is an^{independentagenc-v, which is dircctly} under the contro[ of Unit officer,^{whercSpecial Rranch ollicials conduct} enquiries regarding passports,^{foreigtlers,politir:al vc rili<::rtions, jolr} verilications and the allegaHoos^{against thc police officcrs etc., itl a}

2

transparent nlanner. Thus, the^{respondentNo.i,} had conductecl a detailed enquiry by examining as many^{as twel'rt1'(} rLc (2 1) rr,itrtesse s :rnd submittecl enquirl. rt--port, which rcveals that^th,r allegatiorrs leveled br, the petitioner agaitrst rcsponclent Nos.6 and⁷ arc rise.

It is fulthcr sl.rtcd blr respondent No.5 in rii ( ounter alildaviL lhaL the peLit ioncr arlrl l-ris r,,,ifc were never subjecte': {o any manncr of harassment ar-rd that the petitioncr u,as himselfⁱ volved ir-r scvcral illegal ancl nnlatu,ful activities and, consequently, hc rers prosccnted in six (06) drstinr:1. criminal cases, the de tails of lr'hich lr r e been :;eL oul irr pzrrargrapl-r No.6^'ol LIle counter alfidavit. lt is als r stated that thc respondent No.5 hacl concluctecl discreet cnquiry o r all thirtcen ( l3) corruptiorr coLlnlsi m:rc1c by tl'rc pctiLioner against rr::;: .,ndcnt Nos.6 anrl 7 bl. examining 21 u,itnesses and recorded their dettr erd statements, as per u,hich, thc allcgations lcvollcd against responder i Nos.6 an<l 7 are provecl to bc f:rlsc :rs none of thc alleged victims rr lvitnesscs saicl anYthing against rcspondcnt Nos.6 and 7 and that 11 c allcgzrtions n,crc m.rdc only to Larnish Lheir image. Il is further contcrl [r:d by respondent No.5 that the petitioner approachcd this Court by sr prpressing various facts and thcre lore, reque sted to dismiss the Writ Pe 1i i,rn.

In vierv of thc aforcsaid specific statement rr i de by respondcnt No.5 in the counter affidavit that hc had conductec r detaileci enquin, and founri tl-rat the allegalions made by the xrtiLioncr againsr

respondent Nos.6 and 7 arc false, this^Court is^{of the consideredr,'ieu'} that the present Writ Petition lacks merits^{and is liablc to bc dismissed}

Accorclingll', the Writ Petition is disrnissecl^{being clevorcl of mcrits.} There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequci, pending miscellancous^{applications, ifarly,shall}

stand closccl

sD,-s6,arPsf AiY'#31$"-t^"i sEctrffiorrrcen IITRUE^COPYII

To, 1 one^{cc to sRr P PRABH:yffi'::;::i::i:'::'[ansanaa'i}

2 lw":sx&[fno'

3.^{Two CD Copies}

BSK

BM St{

ti

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910912025

r
1 HE S
( I )\
I
oo
0 I ( B I t.' I
i:
.{
a l-.
{
::/-

ORDER

WP.No.26802 of 2015

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS