Dismissed¶8

Mekala Mallesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Nov 2025WP/30950/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, W.P. No. 30950 of 2018 (N. Tukaramji, J., 19-11-2025): mandamus sought for police inaction on representation dated 08.05.2018 to register crime against respondents 4-6 over land Ac.5.04 gts, Sy.No.645/A/1, Nandiwanaparthy Village, Yacharam Mandal; FIR No.290 of 2018 registered, charge sheet filed, C.C. No.450 of 2019 pending before XVI JMFC, Ibrahimpatnam; writ dismissed as infructuous without costs; miscellaneous applications closed; Article 226; Section 151 CPC.

What did the court decide?

In view of the factual position placed on record (crime registered vide F.I.R. No. 290 of 2018, charge sheet filed, C.C. No. 450 of 2019 pending trial), the petitioner's grievance has been effectively addressed by the respondent police authorities. ¶7

Mekala Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the failure/inaction of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (police authorities) to act on the petitioner's representation dated 08.05.2018 and register a case against respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in respect of the petitioner's land was such as to warrant a writ of mandamus.

¶43

Court's answer

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Nothing further remains in the matter for consideration.

¶7

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.ratio¶8
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 30950 of 2018 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (with I.A. No. 1 of 2018 under Section 151 CPC), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, decided on 19-11-2025 by Justice N. Tukaramji. The petitioner, Mekala Mallesh, sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda, and SHO, Yacharam) to consider his representation dated 08.05.2018 and register a case against respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for alleged illegal acts on his land admeasuring Ac. 5.04 gts. in Sy. No. 645/A/1, Nandiwanaparthy Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and to declare the police inaction illegal and arbitrary. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home informed the Court that the representation was considered, crime was registered vide F.I.R. No. 290 of 2018, and after due investigation a charge sheet was filed, the case having been taken on file as C.C. No. 450 of 2019 on the file of the learned XVI Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ibrahimpatnam, where it is presently pending trial. Holding that the petitioner's grievance stood effectively addressed and that nothing further remained for consideration, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as infructuous, directed that there be no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous applications.

¶1

.1. I I :

¶2

13217 1

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 30950 OF 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mekala Mallesh, S/o Late Mekala Yadaiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.6-8912, Balapur Village & Mbndal, R.R.District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary for Home Department, Secretariat Building (T.S), Hyderabad

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, R.R. District.

¶14

The SHO, Yacharam, Rachakonda Commissionerate, R.R. District.

¶15

Yerukala Venkataiah, S/o. Laxmaiah Aged about 75 yrs, Occ. Agriculture,

¶16

Yeiukala Bikshapathi, S/o Venkataiah Aged about 40 yrs, Occ. Agriculture,

¶17

Yerukala Srinivas, S/o Krishnaiah Aged about 35 yrs, Occ. Agriculture

¶18

. Respondent No.4 to 6 are Rlo. Pillipally, H/o. Nandiwanaparthy Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 or more in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ oider or direction to direct respondent no.2 and 3 by considering the petitioner representation dated 8-5-2018 and register appropriate case against respondent No.4 to 6 for their itlegal acts on petitioner property land adm.Ac.5.04 gts in sy.no.645/A/1 situated at Nandiwanaparthy Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and consequently declare the inaction of respondent nos.2 and 3 in not initiating action against respondent No.4 to 6, even though the

¶21

petitioner has given number of complaints to the respondent No.2 and 3 on sublect land is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of naturaljustice.

¶22

lA NO: 1 Ol: 2018

¶23

Petiticn 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 rro.2 and 3 to receive the petitioner complaint against respondent No.4 to 6 and enquire the same.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. K.MAHALAKSHMI FOR

¶25

MT. PADALA PRAVIN KUMAR

¶26

counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: sRl D.PRADEE, AGp FoR HOME

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6: - - -

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶30

WRIT PETITION No. 30950 OF 2018

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia

¶33

seeking the following relief:

¶34

"...fo issue a writ or more in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to direct respondenf Nos. 2 and 3 by considering the petitioner representation dated 8-5-2018 and register appropriate case against respondenf Nos. 4 to 6 for their illegal acts on petitioner property land adm. Ac. 5.04 gts. in Sy. No. 645/A/1, situated at Nandiwanapadhy Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and consequently declare the inaction of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not initiating action against respondenf Nos. 4 to 6, even though the petitioner has given number of complaints to the respondenf Nos. 2 and 3 on subject land is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural

¶35

justice and pass such other order or orders..."

¶36

I have heard Ms. K. fvlahalakshmi, Iearned counsel, representing Mr. Padala Pravin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶37

\ \

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to act upon the petitioner's representation dated 08.05.2018 by registering a crime against the unofficial respondents, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions.

¶39

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner's representation was duly considered by the concerned police

¶40

¶41

authorities, pursuant to which a crime was registered vide F.1.R..No.290 of 2018. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was taken on filer as C.C. No. 450 of 2019 on the file of the learned XVI Judicial Magistrate r>f First Class, lbrahimpatnam, where the matter is presenly pending trial. Hence, it is contended that the grievance of the petitioner does not survive fr>r adjudication.

¶42

I have perused the material available on record.

¶43

6' The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent police authorities failed to act on his representation and did not register a crime. However, the factual developments placed on record by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home clearly indicate that the crime was duly registered, investigated, and a charge sheet has been filed, culminating in the registration of a Calendar Case which is now pending trial.

¶44

ln vier,t' of the above factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion.that the petitioner's grievance has been effectively addressed by the respondent p'olice authorities. Accordingly, nothing further remains in this matter for con sideration.

¶45

B. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order a:; to costs.

¶46

Pending miscellaneous applications, if a ny, shall stand elosed.

¶47

SD/. B. REKHA RANI STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYT SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49