Dismissed

Mohd. Niazuddin Ahmed v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Feb 2025WP/3337/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil contractor sought a mandamus to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a water board officer allegedly holding a fake engineering certificate, based on RTI information from JNTU. The court found the certificate genuine, held the petitioner lacked locus standi as he suffered no legal injury, dismissed the writ petition with Rs.50,000 costs payable to the Telangana High Court Advocates' A

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner to pay Rs.50,000 to the Telangana High Court Advocates' Association within ten days and file an affidavit tendering unconditional apology.

Mohd. Niazuddin Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^3168l

¶2

I I

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3337 0F 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohd. .Nia^zuddin Ahmed, s/o. Mohd. Zaheeruddin Ahmed, Aqed about 50 vears, Occ. Civil Contractor, R/o.H.No.19-2-328, Kamatipura, Bahadurflura, Htder;baA-

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.-

¶13

The State of Telangana, represented by its principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Developmen[ Department, secretariat Buildii-rg, Hyderabad.

¶14

Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, represented by its Managing Director.

¶15

Jawaharlal Nehru Technotogical University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, represented by its Registrar

¶16

Sri.V.Vinod Bhargava, S/o. Late.V.Buchi Ramulu, Aqed about 60 vears. Occ. Chief General Manager, Office at Hyderabad Metro[olitan Water'supplv and Sewerage Board, Operation and Maintenance, Circld-|, Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 order or any direction, writ more appropriately in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondent No.'l to 3 herein in not considering the representation dated 08.09.2023 made by the petitioner to initiate or conduct disciplinary proceedings against the unofficial respondent who have produced a fake and fabricated certificate of Engineering with Hall ricket No.29211'l B alleged to be issued by the 4th respondent university for the purpose of Government employment is as illegal, arbitrary and violative of

¶19

¶20

¶21

Articles 14, 16 of the constitution of lndia besides contrary to the Letter dated 06.02.2020 issued by the 4th respondent university and Consequently direct the respondents to Dismiss / remove the unofficial respondent from service by considering the representation dated 08.09.2023 made by the petitioner in the interest of^justice.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

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 respondents to forthwith consider the representation dated 08.09.2023 made by the petitioner in the interest of^justice.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHAMMED HABEEBUDDIN

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR MA & UD

¶27

counsel for the Respondent No.3 , tT

¶28

,"#,Tfiil,?.TEREDDY,

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI MOHD. ABDUL QUDDUS, SC FOR JNTU

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 :

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.3337 OF 2025

¶34

ORAL ORDf,R:

¶35

Heard Mr. Mohammed Habeebuddin, learned^{counsetfor the} petitioner, Mr. G. Narender Reddy, leamed^{Standing Counsel} appearing on behalf of respondent^{No.3 and Mr. Mohd.Abdul} Quddus,^{leamed Standing Counsel for JNTU appearingon behalf of} respondent No.4.

¶36

The petitioner herein is a Civil^{Contractor. According to} him, respondent No.5 has^joined in the^{service of respondent No-3} Board by submitting fake and^{fabricated Certificateof Engineering} with Hall Ticket No.292l I l8 alleged^{to have issued by respondent} No.4 University. He^{has placedrelianceon the informationfurnished} to one Mr. Shagbaz Khan Ameer^{vide letter dated 06.02.2020 by} respondent No.4 under Right to^{Information Act 2005(forshort 'RTI} Act'). Basing on the said information,^{the petitioner hassubmitteda} representation dated 08.09.2023^{to respondentNos.2 and 3 to initiate} disciplinary action against respondent^{No.5.The same was not} considered. Therefore,^{he has} filed^{the present writpetition.}

¶37

¶38

¶39

KL,J w.P No.3337 of 2025

¶40

As discussed above, the petitioner is placing reliance on the inlbrmation fumished by respondent No.4 University under RTI Act vide lefier datcd 06.02.2020 to Mr. Shagbaz Khan Ameer. Perusal of the said inlornration dated 06.02.2020 would reveal that Mr. V. Vinod Kumar bearing Hall Ticket No.292l I 1 8 has passed the B.Tech. (Civil Engineering) examination held in June, 1996 in First Class. Respondent No.4 does not maintain the copies of marks memos which are issued to the students

¶41

The petitioner herein has also submitted an application with Public Information Officer of respondent No.4 seeking information with regard to the details of respondent No.5 under RTI Act. Vide information dated 05.06.2023, respondent No.4 has informed the petitioner that the information sought by the petitioner was already fumished on 27.01.2023. He has also filed copies of SSC Marks Memo of respondent No.5, wherein his name is mentioned as 'Vinodh Bhargava V. S/o V. Buchi Ramulu'. In the consolidated marks/credit sheet issued by respondent No.4 also, the name of respondent No.5 is mentioned as 'V. Vinod Bhargava' with hall ticket No.292lll8. Perusal of the same would reveal that respondent No.5 passed the Civil Engineering in First Class in the year 1996. Despite the same,

¶42

XI-J WP No 3337 of2025

¶43

the petitioner has submitted representation dated 08.09-2023 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 with a request to initiate disciplinary action against respondent No.5 alleging that respondent No.5^joined service submitting fake certificate of Engineering.

¶44

Respondent No.5 is 60 years old. At present he is the Chief General Manager of respondent No.3 Board. He is at the verge of retircment. Hc has passed B.Tech., (Civil Ilngineering) in the year 1996. Therefore, without conducting proper enquiry and without verilying documents- including Educational Qualifications of rcspondent No.5, the petitioner has submitted rcpresentation dated 08.09.2023 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 with a request to initiate disciplinary action against respondent No.5 on the ground that he has produced f'ake and fabricated Engineering Certificate with hall ticket No.2921 1 I 8. Therefore, the said allegations made by the petitioner are frivolous and baseless.

¶45

At the cost of repetition, as stated above, even in the consolidated marks memo issued by respondent No.4, the name of respondent No.5 is mentioned as 'V. Vinod Bhargava' with hall ticket No.2921118. Therefore, the allegations made by the petitioner are baseless.

¶46

¶47

KLJ w P No 3337 of2025

¶48

¶49

As discussed^{above, the petitioner is a Civil Contractor'He}

¶50

has no /oczs to submit^{the aforesaid representationto respondent} Nos.2 and 3 and to file^{the present writpetitionas held by the Hon'ble} Supreme Cou( in^{Ravi YashwantBhoirv. Collectorland Vinoy} Kumar v. State of U.P.2^{In Ravi Yashwant Bhoirl,the Apex Court} held as under:

¶51

*58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, exPresident was the complainant,^{thus, at the most,} he could lead evidence as a witness. He could^not claim the status of an adversarial^{litigant. The} complainant cannot^{be the partyto the lis. A legal} right is an averment of entitlement^{arisingout of} law. In fact, it is a benefit^{conferred upon a person} b-v the rule of law. Thus,^{a personwho suffers} from legal injury can only^{challengethe act or} omission. There may be^{someharm or loss that} may not be wrongful in^{the eye of the lawbecause} it may not result in injury to^{a legal rightor legally} protected interest of the complainant^but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria."

¶52

ln Vinoy Kumarz,^{the Apex Court held as under:}

¶53

Generally speaking,^{a personshallhave} no locus standi to file^{a writ petition if he} is not^personally

¶54

'^{. (zotz) a stc +ot}

¶55

'.^{(2oor) 4 scc 734}

¶56

¶57

KL,J W.P. No.3ll7 of 2025

¶58

I I t

¶59

¶60

aflected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignorhg the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or^quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ^jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his firndamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury^{at the} instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in.public interest, the court can exercise the writ^jurisdiction at the instance ol a third parfy only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden^is threatened and such person or determined^class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach^the court for relief."

¶61

¶62

KI-J wP No 1337of2025

¶63

This writ petition is^{misconceived. The petitionerhaswasted} precious time of this Court. In Suraz^{India Trust v. Union of Indiar,} the Apex Court held as under:

¶64

"27.^{The wasteofjudicial time of this Court is a} matler of serious concem. The course of action adopted by the petitioner^(despite its^{alleged bona} fide intention) was not in^{consonancewith law.} When the p€titioner did not^get the^orders that^it hoped for (or felt it was entitled to), the^petitioner pointedll' expressed its anger towards all and sundry ... and even by name. The^petitioner took its grievance to the highest executive functionaries in this country. The petitioner^{agitatedits claim} by airing its grievances to the Chief^Justiceof India and the Judges of this Court - at their^private residences. The petitioner aired its^protestation even against the Secretary^General of^{the Supreme} Court. These officers were targeted because they had filedilodged matters filed by^Suraz tndia Trust lor the simple reason that they were not maintainable. Having considered the^{same, we are} satisfied that the administrative determination^by OfI'icers of the Registry of this Court was firlly justified."

¶65

'3.^{1zot4 tl scc ate}

¶66

¶67

KLJ W.P. No.ll37 of2025

¶68

, I

¶69

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is

¶70

liable to be dismissed with costs. In Uflex Ltd., v. State of Tamil Nadua, the Apex Court held as under:

¶71

"54. The aspect of awarding the costs has received consideration of the Law Commission of India in its Report No. 240, specifically in relation to civil litigation. The trigger for this were the observations of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Guptz" (2009) 2 SCC 656 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 8361 and Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj [Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj, (2010) 8 SCC I : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 2l2l . The^judicial pronouncements took note of the levying meagre costs in civil matters which did not act as a deterrent to vexatious or luxury litigation bome out ol ego or greed or resorted to as a "buying time" tactic. These two judicial pronouncements were followed in Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust [Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust, (2012) t SCC 4ss : (2012) t SCC (Civ) 27sl . tn the said proceeding the Law Commission also presented its views. It is in that context that this Court observed that appropriate changes in the provisions relating to costs contained in the Report

¶72

o. lzozz; I scc to5

¶73

¶74

KI,J w.P. No.3337^of2025

¶75

of the Law Commission^{of India should be} followed up by^{Parliament and the respective High} Courts."

¶76

I I . The present^{writ petition is accordinglydismissed'The} petitioner has to^{pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-(RupeesFiffry} Thousand Only)^{to the TelanganaHigh CourtAdvocates' Association} within ten^{(10) days from today, and file an affidavit in this Court} tendering unconditional^apology.

¶77

As a sequel^{thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in}

¶78

this writ petition^{shall standclosed.}

¶79

For compliance,^{list on 17.02-2025}

¶80

NOTE: ln compliance^{of the Ordels'} 'dated oo-oz-)ozs,^{ifi e cou n+:drJ;[tn} i,5it't'33"d t filed Petitioner's^at \ xi';:gila%1se'l,x 11i,%'2i',sE iitld'r-ooz-2025^{along with a receipt or} PiY*"gt '^{of Rs 5O0001's} reflected in The^same Pro"."Oingt^{sheet on 20-02-2025'}

¶81

SD/.T.^{CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY} ASSI ANT RE^GISTRAR

¶82

//TRUE^COPY//

¶83

ECTION^OFFICER

¶84

to',' rhe chief Secretary, secretariat.Buildli*,:!,3Jgl',lJ"lilst?il''5E1,?iJi'"n' :i?!#tr"f, tq#"tritu$1i#dffi[{Jiffisf*:ffi1":*,."";;:; " B;;;;, ffiirtiuao,ttvteralioiu"n. Technological Universitv, Kukatpallv' 4. The^Registrar' Hvderabad '

¶85