Dismissed¶35

G. Rajendranath Goud, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by the Principal Secretary

Telangana HC8 Oct 2025WP/35816/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court (single judge, N. Tukaramji, J.), W.P. No. 35816 of 2017, decided 08-10-2025. Keywords: Article 226 maintainability; alternative/efficacious remedy under Cr.P.C.; non-registration of complaint/FIR by SHO, Chikkadpally Police Station; writ of mandamus refused; police closure of reports advising civil remedies; reliance on Salkin Vasu (AIR 2008 SC 907) and M. Subramaniam (AIR 2020 SC 387); writ petition dismissed as not maintainable, no costs, liberty to pursue available remedies.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed as not maintainable, petitioner left at liberty to avail remedies available in law; pending miscellaneous applications closed; no order as to costs. ¶35

G. Rajendranath Goud, Vs The State of Telangana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed as not maintainable, petitioner left at liberty to avail remedies available in law; pending miscellaneous applications closed; no order as to costs.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Maintainability: whether, without first exhausting the efficacious/statutory remedies available (under the Cr.P.C.) against non-registration of his complaint, the petitioner can directly invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

It is a well-settled principle of law, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Salkin Vasu, AIR 2008 SC 907; M. Subramaniam, AIR 2020 SC 387), that without exhausting the efficacious remedies a petitioner cannot directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The respondents/police authorities exercised their discretion while examining the reports submitted by the petitioner; if the petitioner remains aggrieved by the non-registration of his complaint, his proper course is to invoke the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., not the writ jurisdiction.

¶33

Key takeaways

In view of the settled legal position and the facts of the case, this Writ Petition is held to be not maintainable; however, the petitioner is at liberty to avail such remedies as are available to him in law, should the cause of action survive.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226, Constitution of India) by a member/founder of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam seeking a writ of mandamus to declare illegal and arbitrary the action of respondent No.3 (Station House Officer, Chikkadpally Police Station) in not registering his complaints dated 10-06-2016 and 13-06-2016 and not conducting investigation, and to direct registration, investigation and filing of a final report. Respondents (through the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home) contended the averments were of a civil nature, the reports were closed with advice to pursue civil remedies, and that without exhausting statutory remedies invocation of Article 226 is impermissible. The Court held that, upon consideration of the police explanation, the respondents exercised their discretion in examining the reports; if aggrieved by non-registration, the petitioner's proper course is to invoke the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., this being well-settled law affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salkin Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907) and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387). The Writ Petition was held not maintainable; the petitioner was left at liberty to avail available remedies in law should the cause of action survive. Accordingly the Writ Petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications stood closed.

¶1

IN TI.IE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA .AT HYDERABAD

¶2

13217 I

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE.EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FME

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

Between:

¶8

Q.^{Rajg$ranath Goud, S/o late G. Jagannath Goud, aged about 64 years,} Occ: Member Founder of Sri Vehkateswara Swamy Devasthinam, 9rinivasapglq[n,^{Chikkadpally,Hyderabad R/o 1-8497i3,Chikkadpalty,} HYderabad-2.'

¶9

AND

¶10

...pETrroNER

¶11

The State of Tetangana, rep. by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3. The Station House Officer, Chi(kadpally Pol[Ce Station, Cf,ifi<afpatly, Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature oJ Writ of fu[andamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in not registering the complaint dated 10-06-2016 and 1310612016 and in not conducting investigation as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to register the -cqmplaint and proceed with the investigation and file final report, as otherwise the temple will suffer irreparable loss and injury and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble court may deemsi fit , and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶15

Pertition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidervit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to register the complaint dated: 10-06-2016 and 13-06-2016 and proc':ed with the investigation and file final report, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶16

counsel for the Petitioner: sRt A. RAVI SHANKAR (Not present)

¶17

counsel for the RespondenE: sRl M. sRlNlvAs, AGp FoR HOME

¶18

The Court made the fofiowing: ORDER

¶19

\ \

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶22

WRIT PETITION No. 358{6 OF 2017

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief:

¶25

"...fo issue an appropriate Wit, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondenf No. 3 in not registeing the complaint dated 10-06-2016 and 13-06-2016 and in not conducting investigation, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent No. 3 to register the complaint and proceed with the investigation and file final report as otherwise the temple will suffer irreparable /oss and injury and to pass such other order or orders as fhis Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶26

2 None appeared on behalf of the petitioner

¶27

3 Mr. M. Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the averments contained in the reports lodged by the petitioner are of a civil nature Consequently, the said reports were closed with an advice to the petitioner to pursue appropriate civil remedies. lt is further contended that, as per the settled legal position, without first exhausting such statutory remedies,

¶28

invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia is impermissible in law. Hence,^{</sup> prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as not maintainable}

¶29

¶30

I have perused the material placed on record.

¶31

¶32

NT&/ IY.P. Na 35816 of 2017

¶33

Upon consideration^, of the explanation offered by the respondents/Police authorities, it is evident that the respondents exercised their discretion while examining the reports submitted by the petitioner. lf the petitioner remains aggrieved by the non-registration of his complaint, the proper course available to him is to invoke the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C. lt is now a well-settled principle of law that, without exhausting the efficacious remedies, a petitioner cannot directly invoke the writ jurisdiction r:f this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia. This legal position has been unequivocally affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salkin Vasu v. Sfafe of Uttar Pradesh & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907) and M. Subrcmaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 387).

¶34

ln view of the settled legal position and the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Writ Petition is held to be not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail such remedies as are available to him in lavrr, should the cause of action survive.

¶35