Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

T.Arun Singh, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Home
Telangana HC
2025
T.Arun Singh, Vs The State of TelanganaT.Arun Singh, v. The State of Telangana

Dismissed¶58

T.Arun Singh, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Nov 2025WP/27960/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, W.P. No.27960 of 2018 (WP.No.27960 of 2018), decided 11.11.2025 by Justice N. Tukaramji (single judge); petitioner T. Arun Singh v. State of Telangana, Commissioner of Police Hyderabad, ACP Asifnagar, Inspector of Police Humayun Nagar Police Station, and C. Rajender. Subject matter: mandamus under Article 226 read with Article 14 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for execution of conviction warrants dated 02.04.2015 in C.C.No.18/2013 pending on the file of XVI Spl. Magistrate; IA No.1 of 2018 under Section 151 CPC; disposed by dismissal as infructuous without costs on the joint submission of counsel; miscellaneous petitions closed; no cases cited, no amounts awarded.

What did the court decide?

In view of the submissions of both learned counsel (petitioner's counsel submitting that the cause of action no longer survives, with no objection from the learned Assistant Government Pleader), the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondent No.4 in not executing the conviction warrants dated 02.04.2015 issued in C.C.No.18/2013 on the file of the XVI Special Magistrate is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, warranting a writ of mandamus directing execution of the warrants. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

In view of the submissions of both learned counsel (petitioner's counsel submitting that the cause of action no longer survives, with no objection from the learned Assistant Government Pleader), the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.

Key takeaways

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

T. Arun Singh v. The State of Telangana and others, Writ Petition No.27960 of 2018, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Special Original Jurisdiction), N. Tukaramji, J., decided 11-11-2025: The petitioner, invoking Article 226, sought a writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.4 (Inspector of Police, Humayun Nagar Police Station) in not executing the conviction warrants dated 02.04.2015 issued in C.C.No.18/2013 on the file of the XVI Special Magistrate as arbitrary, illegal, unfair, unjust, contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and violative of Article 14, and to direct execution of the warrants; IA No.1 of 2018 under Section 151 CPC sought interim directions for execution. At hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause of action no longer survived for adjudication and sought dismissal as infructuous; the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home raised no objection. Held: writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, closed. No precedents were cited or discussed.

A

I

13217 |

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION NO: 27960 OF 2018

Between:

T. Arun Singh, S/o.Late T.Surya Prakash Singh, Aged. 35 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o.H.No.14-10-563 and 567, Lower Dholpet, Hyderabad - 500 006.

...PETITIONERS

AND

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

2 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

4 The lnspector of Police, Humayun Nagar Police Station, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

5 C.Rajender, S/o.C.Saianna, Agedi 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.12-1614/29, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.

...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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in not executing the conviction warrants dt.O2.04.2O15 issued in C.C.No.18/2013 on the file of XVI Spl. Magistrate, as arbitrary, illegal, unfair and uniust apart from being contrary to Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith execute the conviction warrants d1.O2.O4.2O15 issued in C.C.No.18/2013 on the file of XVI Spl. Magistrate.

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to forthwith direct the respondent No.4 to execute the conviction warrants

d1.02.04.2015 issued in C.C.No.18/2013 on the file of XVI Spt.Magistrate, allowing the writ petrtion.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. C.V.S.S. DEEKSHTTAH REPRESENTTNG SRI A. BHUVAN SUNDER REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI D. PRADEEP, ASST. Gp FOR HOME

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: - - - -

The Court made the following: ORDER

Frt-.

(

THE HONOURABLE^SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

WRTT PETITI ONN o.27960 oF 20¹⁸

/

o DE R

This Writ Pctition is^{filcd undcr Articlc226 of Consritution} of India seeking^{the folkrwing rclicf/s:-}

". . . to issuc writ, ordcr^{or dircctionmr>rcparticulady one in thc} narure of Writ of^{Mandamusdeclanng the action o[ the Respondcnt} No.4 in not executing^{the convictionwarrants dt 02 04 2015 issuedin} C.C.No.18/2013^{on the Frle of X\rl Spl lvlagistrate, as arbitrary'} illcgal, unfair and^{uniust apart from bcing contran'to Codeof} Cnirinal Ptocedure,^{1913 and violative of} '\rucle^{1'1 ofthe} constitution of^{India and consequcndydrrcct the ltespondents to} forthwith execute^{t]rc conviction warrants dt020'+2015issucdin} C.C.No.18/2013^{on the file of XVI Spl- Nlagtstrate, and pass "-"}

Heard Ms.C.V.S-S.Dcekshitah,^{learned counselreprescnting}

Mr.A.Bhuvan^{Sunder Redcly,learned counscl for che peotionerznd} Mr.D.Pradeep,^{learncd AssistantGovcrnment Pleader for Flome} appearing for^{respondentNos.1 to 4.}

J Irarned counsel lot^{the pctiuoncrsubmits that the causeof} acti()n in the^{present wrlt} Peutlon n() krnger sun'ives^for adiudication^{and, therefore,secksdismissalof thc writ Petltl()n2s} infructuous.

4 karned Assistant^{Govcrnment Plcadcrraises no obiectionto}

the said submission.

'#&. ru"

2

) llccording rhc submissions of [:oth learncd counsel, thc rvrir pctrnon is dismisscd as inlructuous T'hcrc shall bc no orcicr as r<r

c( )sts

Misceilancous Pcutions, pending if any, shali stand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

SdAL.VIJAYA LAXMI ASSI ANT REG|STRA&,_---') CTION OFFICE R ./

To,

1 One CC to SRt A 2 Two CCs to GP FSJHXtI[:'Y.UPE5,X5;',?I;tH".B]",Lo,I#Sl"ro,,r 3 Two CD Cooies BN

PMK

$..

1

1 I

t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1^111112025

1 HES
(
5
oo
1 6 tl,\fl ?026
t *

ORDER

WP.No.27960^{of 2018}

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION} AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT^COSTS

t I
L.
1,1

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the action of Respondent No.4 in not executing the conviction warrants dated 02.04.2015 issued in C.C.No.18/2013 on the file of the XVI Special Magistrate is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, warranting a writ of mandamus directing execution of the warrants.¶18
2.
Whether the cause of action in the writ petition still survives for adjudication (as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner at hearing).medium confidence¶36
The court held
In view of the submissions of both learned counsel (petitioner's counsel submitting that the cause of action no longer survives, with no objection from the learned Assistant Government Pleader), the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.ratio¶58

Statutes considered

4 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶18 Article 14¶18
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¶18
CPC151¶20

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Action of Respondent No.4 (Inspector of Police, Humayun Nagar Police Station) in not executing the conviction warrants dated 02.04.2015 issued in C.C.No.18/2013, challenged as arbitrary, illegal, unfair, unjust, contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and violative of Article 14.¶18
XVI Spl. Magistrate (court which issued the warrants) · 02.04.2015
Prior proceeding
Conviction warrants dated 02.04.2015 were issued in C.C.No.18/2013 on the file of the XVI Special Magistrate; the writ petitioner sought their execution.¶18
Prior proceeding
IA No.1 of 2018 was filed under Section 151 CPC seeking an interim direction to Respondent No.4 to execute the conviction warrants dt.02.04.2015 issued in C.C.No.18/2013 on the file of XVI Spl. Magistrate.¶20
Prior proceeding
At hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause of action no longer survived for adjudication and sought dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous; the learned Assistant Government Pleader raised no objection.¶36

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
T. Arun Singh, S/o.Late T.Surya Prakash Singh¶10
Ms. C.V.S.S. Deekshttah, A. Bhuvan Sunder Reddy
respondent
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department¶13
D. Pradeep
respondent
The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad¶14
D. Pradeep
respondent
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Asifnagar¶14
D. Pradeep
respondent
The Inspector of Police, Humayun Nagar Police Station¶15
D. Pradeep
respondent
C. Rajender, S/o.C.Saianna¶16

Coram

AI extract

The Honourable Sri Justice N. Tukaramjiauthor¶7

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Telangana HC
Decided on: 11 Nov 2025 · November
Registered: 7 Aug 2018
Case no.: WP/27960/2018
CNR: HBHC010589562018
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: N.tukaramji
Disposal: DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS
Case type: Writ Petition

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from N.tukaramji

Mohammed Abdul Rasheed Vs The State of Telangana
10 Nov 2025
Vasala Venkataramana Vs The State of Telangana
10 Nov 2025
Donthulapally Seshidhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana
10 Nov 2025
Ganta Sadanandam Vs The State of Telangana
11 Nov 2025
Big C Mobiles Pvt.Ltd.,Hyderabad. Vs the State of Ts.,Home,Hyderabad, and 5 Otrs.
11 Nov 2025
N.Rajani Kanth Vs The State of Telangana
11 Nov 2025

Cite this judgement

T.Arun Singh, v. The State of Telangana, WP/27960/2018 (TEL), decided on 11 November 2025.

The High Court for the State of Telangana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes4

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 · Article 14
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
CPC151

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Action of Respondent No.4 (Inspector of Police, Humayun Nagar Police Station) in not executing the conviction warrants dated 02.04.2015 issued in C.C.No.18/2013, challenged as arbitrary, illegal, unfair, unjust, contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and violative of Article 14.XVI Spl. Magistrate (court which issued the warrants) · 02.04.2015
Conviction warrants dated 02.04.2015 were issued in C.C.No.18/2013 on the file of the XVI Special Magistrate; the writ petitioner sought their execution.
IA No.1 of 2018 was filed under Section 151 CPC seeking an interim direction to Respondent No.4 to execute the conviction warrants dt.02.04.2015 issued in C.C.No.18/2013 on the file of XVI Spl. Magistrate.

View full history

Bench / Coram

The Honourable Sri Justice N. Tukaramji

Parties & counsel