N Ashok Kumar v. State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Home,Hyd,and 2

Telangana HC21 Aug 2025WP/29804/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging continuous investigation summons in EAMCET paper leak case disposed of due to lapse of time; liberty to revive reserved. No merits decision. Telangana High Court, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without costs; petitioner's rights reserved to revive petition by filing appropriate application if surviving cause of action arises. ¶¶64-¶66, ¶105-¶106

N Ashok Kumar Vs State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Home,Hyd,and 2 — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

I $

132171

*t,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYOERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶7

THURSDAY, THE TWENW^{FIRST DAY OFAUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

PRESENT

,t,

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEN.TUKARAMJI}

¶12

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 29804 OF 2016}

Between:

t.i

Nuour Ashok Kumar, s/o Late N.^{Sham SundarRao,Agedabout 66 years, occ Nil,} R/o"Flat Number 401, MYM^{Estates, Thakur Masion Lane, Beside Khazana Jwellers,} Somajiguda, Nampally,^{Hyderabad-82.}

.....PETITIONER

AND

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

¶23

Director General of Police,^{State of Telangana, Hyderabad.}

¶24

.i. I 6

¶25

Crime Branch Central^{lnvestigation Department,Lakdika pool, Hyderabad'}

.....RESPONDENTS

ri 6

.tt

Petition under Article 226^{of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue any writ, order or direction^{more particularlyone in the nature of} writ of mandamus declaring^{the inaction of the respondents 2 and 3 for calling the} petitioner continuously in the name of^{investigation withoutany reasonsand} without any involvement of^{the petitioner in the Eamcet examination paper} Leakage case is^{questionedin this writ petition as being arbitrary,illegal and} violation of Article 14,^{19 (1) (s) and 21 of the constitutionof lndia} consequentially direct^{the respondentNo. 2 and 3 not to insist the petitioner to} appear before them^{in the nameof investigation without any reasonsor any} involvement of the^{petitionerin Eamcetexamination paper Leakage Case'}

.t. +,

,i a,

't 6

*' ,

.i 6

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 respondent No. 2 and 3 not to insist the^petitioner to appear before them in the^name of^{investigation} without any reasons or any involvement of the petitioner in Eamcet examination paper Leakage Case.

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI DIDA VIJAYA KUMAR

¶43

,i #

¶44

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER

'T*

,i #

'r {t

.t 0

\ \

t t

THE^{HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶52

WRIT PETITION^{No.29804 OF 2016}

¶53

OR ER:

¶54

. This Writ^{Petition is filed underArticle 226 of Constitutionof} lndia seeking^{the followingrelief:}

¶55

,,...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ^{of Mandamusdeclaring the inactionof the respondent Nos.2} and 3^{for callingthe petitioner continuouslyin the name of} investigation^{without any reason and without any involvement of the} petitioner in^{the Eamcetexaminationpaperleakage caseis} questioned^{in thiswrit petitionas arbitrary, illegalandviolation of} Articles^{1a, 19(1Xg) and 21 of the constitution of lndia, consequently} direct^{the respondent Nos.2 and3 not to insist the petitioner to appear} before them^{in the nameof investigationwithout any reasonsor any} involvement^{of the petitioner in Eamcet examination paper Leakage} case and^{pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in} the circumstances."

¶56

I have^{heard Mr. D. Vijaya Kumar, learned counselfor} the petitioner^{andMr.R.LaxmikanthReddy, learned} Assistant Government^{Pleader forHome appearingfor}

¶57

respondent Nos.1^{to 3-}

¶58

Learned^{counsel for the petitionerwould submit that there} are no specific^{instructions from the petitioner-}

¶59

Learned^{Assistant Government Pleaderfor Home submits} that the respondents^{have not, at any stage, interferedin the}

¶60

¶61

matter. lt is further contended that the allegations made in the petition remain unsubstantiated by any supporting material. On

¶62

these grounds, he prays that the petition be dismissed.

¶63

I have perused the materials on record

¶64

ln the circumstances, and having regard to the lapse of time, this Court finds no necessity to keep the present petition pending on file. Nevertheless, the rights of the petitioner are expressly reserved to seek revival of this petition by filing an appropriate application, should any surviving cause of action so warrant.

¶65