Dismissed¶¶52

E.Sambasiva Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Oct 2025WP/33959/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana HC Writ Petition No. 33959 of 2017 (decided 14-10-2025, Justice N. Tukaramji): petitioner E. Sambasiva Rao complained of SHO Parvathagiri's non-investigation of Cr. No. 69/2017 (registered 09.05.2017; IPC Ss. 447, 427 r/w 34) against Sadineni Ramesh, Bikki Venkanna @ Venkateswarlu and Bikki Yakaswamy, and sought protection for cotton-crop harvesting; at hearing petitioner's counsel stated the cause of action no longer survived; writ petition DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS; pending miscellaneous petitions (incl. I.A. No. 1 of 2017 / WP MP No. 42241 of 2017, S. 151 CPC) closed.

What did the court decide?

None — writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed. ¶¶52

E.Sambasiva Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed.

¶¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondent No. 2 (SHO, Parvathagiri Police Station) in not investigating Cr. No. 69/2017 and failing to protect the petitioner was illegal and arbitrary, warranting a writ of mandamus directing investigation and protection for harvesting the petitioner's cotton crop. +1 more

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

Recording the submissions of both learned counsel (petitioner's counsel having stated that the cause of action no longer survives, and the Assistant Government Pleader raising no objection), the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous and made no order as to costs.

¶¶37

Key takeaways

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, connected with the writ petition were directed to stand closed.ratio¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Special Original Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 33959 of 2017, decided 14.10.2025 by the Honourable Sri Justice N. Tukaramji. E. Sambasiva Rao (agriculturist, Somaram village, Parvathagiri Mandal, Warangal) had sought a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring illegal and arbitrary the action of Respondent No. 2 (Station House Officer, Parvathagiri Police Station) in not conducting the investigation pursuant to registration of crime Cr. No. 69/2017 on 09.05.2017 against Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (Sadineni Ramesh; Bikki Venkanna @ Venkateswarlu; Bikki Yakaswamy) and others for offences punishable U/ss. 447, 427 r/w 34 IPC, allegedly yielding to pressures brought out by the 5th respondent, and directing investigation of that crime and provision of protection for harvesting the cotton crop raised by the petitioner; an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1 of 2017 / WP MP No. 42241 of 2017 under Section 151 CPC) sought a report from the SHO on steps taken pending disposal. At hearing, counsel for the petitioner (Sri V. Brahmaiah Chowdary) submitted that the cause of action no longer survives for adjudication and sought dismissal as infructuous; the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home (Sri M. Srinivas) raised no objection. Recording these submissions, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, made no order as to costs, and ordered pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, to stand closed. No precedents were cited or relied upon.

¶1

13217 |

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶6

WRIT PET]TIO^{N NO: 33959 OF 2017}

¶7

Between:

¶8

E.Sambasiva Rao, Sio. Somaiah,^{aged 48 Years, Occ:Agriculturist'} Rl/o. Somaram village,^{Parvathagiri Mandal,Warangal District'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Station House^{officer, Parvathagiri Police Station, Parvathagiri,warangal} Dist.

¶13

sadineni Ramesh,^{S/o. Pitchaiah,27 yeacs,r/o.Somaram Gunturpally village,} Parvathagiri Mandal, Warangal^District

¶14

Bikki Venkanna @^{Venkateswarlu,S/o. not Known to the Peittioner, Aged} Major, r/o. Somaram Gunturpally^{village,Parvathagiri Mandal, Warangal} istrict

¶15

Bikki Yakaswamy,^{S/o. Nagamalleswar Rao,35 years,r/o' Somaram} Gunturpally villaie,^{Parvathagiri Mandal, Warangal District'}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article^{226 ot lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate^{writ, order or direction, morein the nature of} Mandamus;{eclaring^{the action of the 2tu respondentin not conduc,ting the} investigation in^{pursuanceto the registrationof crime in cr. No. 6912017 on} 09.05.2017 registered^{againstthe respondents 3 to 5 herein and othersfor an} offence^{punishable U/ss.447, 427 rtw. 34 of IPC by yileidngto the pressures} brought out by the^{Sth respondent and not givingany protection from the} respondents 3 to 5^{and their henchmen as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation}

¶18

¶19

of principles of natural^justice and fair^play and conset^{t ently} direct^the2nd respondent to conduct the investigation into the aforesaid^:rime and to^provide protection for harvesting the cotton crop raised by the petit )ner in the aforesaid lands.

¶20

l.A. NO: I OF 2017(WP MP. NO: 42241 OF 20171

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the c r ;umstances stated in the affidavit filedⁱⁿ support^{of the petition, the High} Court^m l^{be pleased to direct} the 2nd respondent herein to submit a report about the step r taken by^petitionerin pursuance to the registration of complaint in Cr. No. 69/2'l^r7 on his file on the complaint of the^petitioner dated 9.5.2017,^pending dispcs al of the above writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. BRAHMAIAH CHOWDAFI^'

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l and 2: SRI M. SRINIVAI; AGP FOR HOME

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: --

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI WSTICEN.TUKARA.UJI}

¶28

WRIT PETITIO^{N No.33959 oF 2017}

¶29

O RD ER:

¶30

This Writ^{Petitionis filed under Article226 of Constitution} of India seeking^{the following relief/s:-}

¶31

o...to issue an appropriate writ' order or direction'^{more in the} nahrre of Mandamus,^{declaring the action of the 2nd respondent} in not conducti"g^{thtinve-stigationin} -^{p-ursuance tothe} gJt "U.; of^{crime in Cr'No' 69/2017 ono9'05'2o17} ;AJ;; against^{the respondnets 3 to 5 herein and others for} ".".ff""^{pt*shable U/ss'447' 427 r/w'34 of IPC bv yileidng} ;' th; ;;;**s brought out^{by the 5th} -req:ondent^andnot ;;; henchmen ;y^protection as^{being illegal, irom the arbitriy resPondents and is in} .3^{to 5 violation and theirof} iIriJ&;-^{oi-""t"tir j"""ti""} "'ta^{fair. ptSv and consequentlv} direct the 2nd^{respond'entto conductthe investigationintothe} ;".."riJ crime^{and io provide pmtection for harvestingthe} ;"tt";-o"p^{raised by tf't p"titio"itin the aloresaid lands'and} pass...'

¶32

2 Heard Mr.V.Brahmaiah^{Chowdary' learned counselfor the} petitioner and^{Mr.M'srinivas,learnedAssistant Government} Pleader for Home^{appearingfor respondentNos' I and 2 '}

¶33

3 Learned counsel^{for tlle petitioner submitsthat the causeof} action in tJ:e^{present writpetttron} no Ionger survives^for adjudication^{and, therefore,seeks dismissal of the writ petition} as infructuous.

¶34

4 karned Assistant^{Government Pleader raisesno objection} to the said submission.

¶35

¶36

¶37