K. a. Bakshi, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

K. a. Bakshi, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the alleged harassment of the petitioner and his family members by respondent No.3-SHO warrants a direction that respondent No.3 not interfere with the petitioner's activity of practising and imparting training in Electro Homeopathy. +1 more

Court's answer

The court proceeded on respondent No.3-SHO's counter position that interrogation of the petitioner during the course of investigation pursuant to registration of various crimes against the petitioner and his wife cannot be treated as subjecting the petitioner and his family members to harassment.

Ratio / Principle

In view of respondent No.3's counter denying the allegations of harassment, the relief sought in the writ petition has worked itself out and nothing survives for further adjudication in the present proceedings.

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous; however, it is open to the petitioner, if so advised, to pursue any other remedies available in law.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Article 226) by K.A. Bakshi, an Electro Homeopathy practitioner, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.1 (State of Telangana) in harassing the petitioner and his family members and preventing him from practising Electro Homeopathy as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21, and directing Respondent No.3 (SHO, Karkhana) not to interfere with his practice/training; the interim application (S.151 CPC) also sought return of books and material seized from him. Earlier Lokayukta-prompted prosecutions had ended in acquittals (judgment dated 23.10.2000, XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad; appeal judgment dated 16.05.2001, VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad), and an earlier W.P. No.34476/1998 against the Lokayukta's prosecution direction was withdrawn. Subsequently, FIR/Crime No.2 of 2015 (complaint dated 07.01.2015 by Smt. Mahitha) under Sections 354A, 506, 420 IPC led to conviction in C.C.No.127 of 2017 (judgment dated 19.12.2019), besides other cases including under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Respondent No.3's counter specifically denied any harassment, treating interrogation during investigation as incapable of constituting harassment. Holding that the relief sought had worked itself out and nothing survived for adjudication, the court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, left the petitioner free to pursue other remedies in law, made no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous applications.

[³⁴⁸⁶¹

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

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO: 36566 OF 2015

Between:

K. A. Bakshi, S/o. Md. Salamath Bakshi, aged 56 years, Occ Electro Homeopathic Practice, R/o. 230, Kharkhana, Secunderabad.

,..PETITIONER

AND

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2.. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad.

The Station House Officer, Wellington Rd, Karkhana, Secunderabad, Telangana 500 015.

...RESPONDENTS

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 any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No-1 in harassing the Petitioner and his family members, preventing him from practicing Electro Homeopathy, which is not prohibited by Union of lndia or the State Govt as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art.1 4 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent not to interfere with the activity of the Petitioner.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO'.4^{7098 0F 2015)}

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC^{prayingthat in the cirr umstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} direct the respondent^{No:3 not to interfere the activity rf the Petitionerin} practicing and impartrng tralning in electro homeopathy^{and t:turn the booksand} other material seized^{from the petitioner pendingdisposa of the abovewrit} petition

Counsel for the Petitioner^: SRI^{P.B.VIJAY KUMAR}

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI^{B.SRIDHAR,ASST.GP F('R HOME}

The Court made the following: ORDER

@

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{VAKITIRAMAKRISHNA REDDY}

WRIT PETITION No.36566 of 2O15

ORDER

Hczrrd Sri Dr. P. B. Vijaya Kumar, Icarned^counsel on^{rccord lor} the petitioncr and Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri,^{learnedAssistanL} Government Pleader for Home lor the^{respondents and perused the} material available on record.

This Writ Petition is tiled seeking to^{declare the action of} respondcnt No.1 in harassing the^{petitioncr and his family members} and prevcnting him lrorn^{practicingElectroHomeopathy,rvhich is not} prohibitcd bl. Union of India or the^{State Governmcnt, as illegal,} arbitrary and consequently to^{direct the respondentNo.3 not to} intcrfere witl-r the activiLy of the^pctitioner.

'lt is the case o[ the pctitioner that the petitioner is practicing, teaching and imparting training^{inElectroHomeopathy,which is a} system of mcdicine and^{the existence of which is known since 1890 in} In<lia and that the system of^{ElectroHomeopathyis identicalwith the} system of Homeopathy, in^{so faras the processof diagnosisis} concerned and it differs^{fromHomeopathyas regardslherapy is} concerned. It is further^{statcd that thepractitionersofElectro} Homeopathy are being^{branded as quacks and are under the constanL} threat o[ harassment/ closure^{of clinics by the respondents,and the} petitioner was prosecuted twice by^way of^{filing prosecutionsby}

1

respondent No.3 at the^{instanceofLokayrrkta t rdon brrth the} occasions, thc^pe titioner^{u'as acquitted uide judgmt:rlllated 23 1O 2000} in 6.g.11e.t)tr4 ol^{2OOOpassecl b1' rhc XI Metropolrn Magistrateat} Secunclererbnd, zrrrrl .judgmcnL^{clatecl 16.05.20O1in (lrl A.No.401of 2ooo} passed [rv the Vl Adrlitional^{Mctropolitancssions Judge,} Secundcrabad. At^{that stage, the petitioner filed Wril )etilionNo'34476} of 1998 bclorc lhis Court^{assailingthe ordcrs ol-re Lokal-ukta in} dirccting prosecttliolt^and in^{the rncanwhile,sinctt': petitiorlerwas} acquitted, he u.ithcircrv thc saicl^{writ Pctition on 3o.o(} '^2OO9.

It is lirrtl'rcr cotrtended^{by thc petitioner thatt ter a long gap of} several ycars, FIR No.2 ol 2Ol5^{dated 07 Ol.2Olit' as registcredby} respondent No.3 br the same^{offences and this tirr :, by additiono[} Section 354A of lntlizrn Pcnal Code^{(tPC). Therefore,} 1i^{titioner prayedto} direct the responrlcut No.3 not^{to intcrfcre with1l c activiff of the} petitioner in practicing and imparting training in^{Illt:troHomeopathy} and to direct to return the^{booksand othermatcri rseizcd from the} petitioner.

In reply to thc abovc averments,^{respondentl'l r.3 filed counter,} inter alia, stating thzrt basing on^{a complaint datcd 07 )1.2015from one} Smt. Mahitha, R/o. B.K.Guda,^{S.R.Nagar,Hydcr-ilad, a case was} registered against thc^petitioner and^{his wife on the sir ne day on the hle} of Karkhar.ra Policc St:rtion uide Crime^{No.2 of 2015lil, d underSections} 354A, 506, 42O ol lPC. Thereafter, the^{policc' havc conducted}

3

I I

investigation and filed a charge sheet bcfore the Xll^{AdditionalChief} IVletropolitan Magistrate, Narnpalll,, Hyderabad,^{which culminated into} taking cognizance of thc crime b1' the trial Court and^{after conducting} trial, thc petitioncr u,:rs convictetl in the^{said crimctry the trial Courtir-r} C.C.No. 127 of^'2017 uide^judgment dated 19.12.2019.

1

[t is also sta[ed by'respondcnt No.3 in the counter^{affidavit that} various other cases in such of[cnces n'erc also^{registered against thc} petitioner inclr-rding violation of the provisions^of Section 27 of^Drugs ancl Cosmetics Act, 1940 and other^{related provisions Further,the} respondcnt No.3 rvhilc refuting the^{allegationsof harassment of the} petitioncr and his lamily members by thc^{police, has specilicallystated} that the policc had ncver harassed the^petitioner ,^{and his farnily} membcrs no!- preventcd the^{pctitioner frompracticingElectro} Homeopathy, zrs allegcd bv the^{petitioner in the Writ Petitionand that} during the course of investigation in^{the cases registeredagainst him,} he was interrogated and the same cannoL^{be treated as harassment.}

7 . The main grievance of the^{petitioneris that the petitionerand his} family members have been harassed^{by the respondents,particularly} respondent No.3-SHO atid thereforc,^{the pctitioner requestedthis Court} to direct respondent No.3-SHO^{not to interfere with the activity of the} petitioner.

[n view of lhe counter filed^{by respondentNo.3, whereinspecihc} statements havc been rnade by^{respondentNo.3-SHO denying the}

4

allegations of harassment of the petilioner and his fa^- ily rnembcrs, and stating that interrogation of the petitioner dttri^- 3 the course of invcstigation purslran t to registration of various r I tncs against the petit,ior-rer and his u ife , cannoL be treated as subicr rrg the petitioner and l-ris lamily rlcmbt-rs to harzrssment.

In the light o[ thc said dcvclopment, the rclief: rr-rght in tire Wril Petil ior-r has rvorked itself out and nothing st,t^- ivcs for furLher adjudication in the prcscnt procccdings.

Accordingll , tl.rr: Writ Pctition stands disrnis;,' as infnrctuous. Howcvcr, it is open to the petiLioner, if so adviscd, tu rursue any other remt:dies available in iaru,. Thcre shall be no ordcr as costs.

As a sequel, pcnding misccllaneous applicatr rs, if any, shall

stand closcd.

//TRUE^COPY//

.. \ sd/- u. SUDHA ---..+'- - As\r iJ\Nr^REGJI,BAR-, s\rrou^oFFlcER

To,

1 One CC^{to SRI P B.VUAY KUMAR Advocate IOPUC]}

2 Two CCs^{to GP} for Home,^{High Courtfor the S 'i te of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

Two CD^CoPies

BSK

MP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910912025

ORDER

WP.No.36566 of 2015

Y ..
I THE SIa
( ()'
oo I il ,rAN ?fl?F Ctz
.},
* *
! SPl'-^' ""'

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS