Dismissed

M/s. Sri Venkateswara General Agencies, Jagtial, H.No. v. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC7 Oct 2025WP/32285/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus against State and police officials for interfering with and harassing their business operations. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause of action had ceased to survive, rendering the petition infructuous. The Court accepted this submission and dismissed the petition. The ancillary miscellaneous petition was also disposed of.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s. Sri Venkateswara General Agencies, Jagtial… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132171

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI-ANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 32285 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Sri Venkateswara General Agencies, Jagtial, H.No. 6-5'234, Saragamma Street, Market Road, Jagtial Town and Mandal, Karimnagar^{District, Rep.by its} Proprietor Kotagiri Gangad har.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Jagtial District.

¶13

The Station House Officer, Law & Order, Jagtial Town, and^District.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Law & Order, Metpally, Jagtial, District.

¶15

The Station Officer, Law & Order, Kurutla, Jagtial District.

¶16

The Asst. Commissioner, Roads & Transport, Jagtial, District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ot lle Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the ac{ion of the Respondents in harassing^{by interfering} with business of the^petitioner in by name and Style of^{M/s. Sri Venkateswara} General Agencies, Jagtial under valkl license GSTIN^{No.36AHMPKB448FIZYand} also seizing^products and even though on the^{productionof tills and Way Bills} evidencing that it was^purchased under bills and transported^{underway billsand} not allowing^petitioner to carry on business as^{iltegal, arbitrary of lawand}

¶19

t1 it {I

¶20

consequently direct the respondents not to interfere the 1> ditioners business at Jagtial Town and Distirct forth with.

¶21

l.A. NO: 'l OF 2017(WPMP. NO:401 68 0F 2017)

¶22

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the ci cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court me 7 be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfering with the petitioner's pea: :ful business running by name and Style of M/s. Sri Venkateswara General Agenc i rs, Jagtial under valid license GSTIN No. 36AHMPK8448FIZY, by permitting the )etitioner to continue the business by name of M/s. Sri Venkateswara General Ag 'ncies, Jagtial District under valid license, pending disposal of the main writ petitio r

¶23

Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI ANNNAMPELLI GANGADFI, rR SRI C. PRAKASH

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.l to 5: SRI M. SRINIVAS \GP FOR HOME

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJT

¶28

WRIT PET!TION No.32285 OF 2017

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This writ Petition is fired under Articre 226 of constitution of lndia seeking the following relief:

¶31

"...to issue an order, direction or a writ padiculady one in the nature of the .mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in harl2yng by interfering with business of the petitionei in by name and Style of ArUs. Sri Venkateswaracenerat Agencies, Jagtial under valid license GSI/N No.36A HM4KS44OF\ZY and atio seizing products and even though on the prduction of bitls and Way Bilis evidenglng that it was purchased under bitts and transputed- under way bills and not allowing petitioner to carry on business as i egat, arbitrary of law and consequen y direct the respondents noi to inteiere the petitioners bus,ness at Jagtia! Town and Dislirct forth with....."

¶32

Heard M/s.A.Gangadhar and Mr.C.prakash, learned counsel

¶33

for the petitioner and Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in this Writ petition does not survive for adjudication and seeks to dismiss this Writ Petition as infructuous.

¶35

Recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infrr.rctrrcus. Tfiere shall be no order as to costs

¶36

Miscellaneous Petitions, pendin g if any, shall stand p{osed.

¶37

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTR.AR

¶40

SECTION OFFTCER

¶41

1 One CC to SRt ANNNAMPELLT GANGADHAR, Advocate tOpUCJ

¶42

2 Two CCs to Gp for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶43

F76

¶44

- Two CCs to Gp for Tr rur I ransport' Hish court for the {;r rte of relangana at

/;ieitlJd:ioi'n

q/'fwoCD Cofies

t /

lr IGH COURT

DATEI );0711012025

f
/
I t'- )f:i
I
(
C)
2 7 JAil IID I
* t
SPAl ( ,v\ t-
ORDER

¶54

WP.No.:3 2285 ot²⁰¹⁷

¶55

DISMISSING THE^{WI IIT PETITION} AS lt\l:RUCTUOUS WITI IOUT COSTS

¶56

,+ v

M/s. Sri Venkateswara General Agencies, Jagtial, H.No. v. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/s. Sri Venkateswara General Agencies, Jagtial, H.No. v. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Mohd Azeemuddin, Vs The State of Telangana

Maddi Sharada Devi, Warangal Dist and 2 Others Vs Prl Secy, Home Dept, Hyderabad and 10 Others

V Surender Rao, Hyderabad Vs Secy, Dept of Home, Hyderabad and 2 Others

T.Anjaneyulu, Vs The State of Telangana

Gaddam Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Bathini Sathaiah, Vs The State of Telangana