Sunke Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana, rept… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Sunke Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana, rept… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs; the petitioner retains liberty to challenge the closure report dated 14.09.2015 under law; pending miscellaneous applications (including the interim security prayer) stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of the official respondents in not initiating action against unofficial respondent Nos. 7 to 11 — for allegedly harassing, abusing, threatening to kill the petitioner, robbing two cycles and a badge, and expelling him and his family members from their caste and village — is illegal/arbitrary and warrants a writ of mandamus with consequential directions (registration of separate criminal cases, investigation with final reports, security, and non-obstruction of his Village Servant duties). +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the complaint having been reported 'False' by the Koheda police station notice/closure report dated 14.09.2015, this Court holds that, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is granted liberty to take appropriate steps to challenge the closure report dated 14.09.2015, if so advised.

Ratio / Principle

Following the subsequent development, the grievance of the petitioner no longer survives for adjudication; however, it remains open to the petitioner to avail remedies under law, if so advised, challenging the closure report dated 14.09.2015.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Telangana, WP.No.36606 of 2015, decided 01.09.2025 by Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy (single member). Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus against the inaction of official respondent Nos. 1 to 6 regarding alleged harassment, abuse, threats to kill, robbing of two cycles and a badge, and expulsion of the petitioner and his family from their caste and village by unofficial respondent Nos. 7 to 11; consequential prayers to register separate criminal cases on his complaints, investigate and file final reports, provide security, and permit discharge of Village Servant duties; violations of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 300-A alleged; interim prayer under Section 151 CPC for security from SHO Koheda (Dist. Karimanager) pending disposal. Respondent No. 3's counter affidavit records receipt of the petitioner's complaint dated 09.09.2015 with a same-day G.D. entry; a police preliminary enquiry found that no one had beaten the petitioner or robbed his two cycles; a notice dated 14.09.2015 by Koheda police station marked the complaint 'False' (closure report dated 14.09.2015). Court's holding: the grievance no longer survives for adjudication; the petitioner is granted liberty, in the interest of justice, to challenge the closure report dated 14.09.2015 if so advised. Outcome: writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed. Counsel: B. Ravinder representing K. M. Mahender Reddy (petitioner); Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, AGP for Home (TG) (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3); GP for Revenue (TG) (Respondent Nos. 4 to 6).

t^{3486 I}

tN rHE^{HIGH couRrf8$rtff^t"t^iJEoF TELANGANA}

(s Pecilt'^{ci ii gi n;i'"ri sdi ction)}

MONDAY,^{THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO^{THOUSNT',O.NUO TWENTYFIVE}

PRESENT

THEHoNoURABLESRIJUSTICEVAKITIRAMAKRISHNAREDDY

Between:

Occ:^{VillageServant' FUo}

?+iillF"';Jj3l?lrf,^lif#ii:?sii"ifl?1#?vears' ...PETITIONER

a ry-'^{H o m e' H vd e ra b a d}

T 2. H: The :l*:,?J,:^SuPent fi lT..ltl?^{;f; 3:,'/,:} ffii!3'', -* - nas^{a r} "

a, itt i$:;1i:i:31;xffi:5[?iffieii;1'' u,u* Parveda),⁽

Parveda),⁽

1. Ase^Sheml Parveda), t

9.^{Lingam Ve} Nill) Parvt

to.bunre^eat : Parveda),

ll.SunkeKat Parveda)'^{(M) Koneud'lurtotT}

...RESPONDENTS

petition und.er^{Articre 226 0ftheconstitutionof rndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfited therewith,the High court may be} pleasedtoissueanappropriateWrit,orderordirectionparticularlyoneinthenature^{of writ of a ,,[vlandamus,,chalrengingthe inactions of officiarrespondents in} not^{initiating -actions against unofficialrespondentsfor harassing,abusing,} threatening^{to kill us, robbing 2 cycles, badge, expellingthe petitioner and his} famiry^{membersfrom their caste as well as from the Vi*age etc is tota'y i'egal} arbitrary,unjust,discriminatory,unreasonable,without.iurisdiction,opposedto publicpolicy,violativeofArt.14,16,19,21,300-AofConstitutionoflndiaandalso

violative of principles of natural justice and cail for records and issue consequential directions: a) to register separate criminal cases against unofficiar Respondent No.7 to .rl on the petitioners complaints, b) direct the Police to investigate the cases as per raw, by firing finar reports before concern Courts,

c) to provide security to petitioner & his famiry members and to their property, il:,.:.^{j:r:j"*ctthe petitioner to discharge his duties as Virage servant} and

4

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 preased to direct the SHo Koheda' Dist Karimanagar to provide security to petitioner & his famiry members, incruding their property, pending disposar of writ petition

counser for the petitioner: sRr B..RI,_TNDER Representing SRI K. M. MAHENDER REDDY

COUNSEI fOr thE RESPONdENT NO.1 tO 3: SRI SRIDHAR BHUVANAGIR, AGP FOR HoME (rG)

counserfor the Respondent No. 4 to 6: Gp FoR REVENUE (TG)

Counsel for the Respondent No. I to 11: __ None Appeared

The Court made the foflowing: ORDER

THE HOITOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHIITA REDDY

[I.P.ltto.366O6 OF 2O 15

ORDER:

Heard Sri B. Ravinder, learned counsel representing Sri K.M.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the inaction of official respondents in not initiating action against the unoflicial respondents for harassing, abusing, threat.ening to kill, robbing 2 cycles, badge, expelling the petitioner and his famil-y members from their caste as well as from tlle \rillage e[c., as iilegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory, unreasonable, opposed to public policy, violative of Articles i4, L6, !g, 2i, 3OO-A of Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and for consequential directions- a) to register separate criminal cases against unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 11 on the petitioner's complaints, b) direct the Police to investigate the cases as per taw, by filing final reports before concerned court, c) co provide security to the petitioner and his family members arrd to their property, d) not to obstruct the petitioner to discharge his duties as Viliage Servant and to award costs.

3' The respondent No-3 fired a counter affrdavit, wherein

\

2

responclent No.3 stated that the compraint, dated og.og.2o15 made by the petitioner was received by the police and immediately a G.D. entry was made on o9.09.2015 itserf. It is further stated that the police have conducted a preliminar5r enquiry and it was found by the Police that no one had heaten trre petitioner nor robbed his two cycles as allegeci by the petitioner and that the same was also informed to the petitioner

4' The learned Assistant Government pleader further submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner against the unofficial respondents are false and accordingry, a notice dated r4.og.2015 was also issued to the comprainant by trre Koheda police station stating that the complaint of the petitioner has been reported to be 'False". Therefore, this court is of the view that in interest ofjustice. the petitioner is granted liberty to take appropriate steps to challenge the closure report dated l4.Og.2O1S, if so advised.

5- In vier.r' of the abo*e sedd subsequent development, the grievance of the petitioner no ronger survives for adjudication. However, it is made clear that it is open for tlie petitioner to avail the remedies uncier law, if so advised, challenging tl.e closure report dated 14.09.2015

3

Accordingly, tlle Writ^{Petition stands dismissed as infructuous.}

There shall be no order^{as to costs.}

As a sequel, the pending miscellaneous applications,^if any,ⁱⁿ

this writ petition shall stand closed.

//TRUE^COPY//

P .C.SULEKHA^DEVI ANT REGISTRAR /

SECTION^OFFICER

,/

To, IOPUCI 1 One CC to^{SRIK M MAHEN DER REDDY,} -State of Telangana' 2. Two^{CCs to GPFOR HOME(TG), High Courtfor the} 3. [?u"tt"'^{to Gp FOR REVENUE (TG), High courtfor the stateof relangana'} tourl

Two^{CD CoPies}

MMT TKS .ftrnc..

II

HIGH COU

DATED:01^10912025

3 =i

WP.No.36606 of²⁰¹⁵

I
r( STAI
a
0l J[li itr?6

5;:.4-rf

DISMISSI^{NG THE WRIT PETITIONAS} INFRUCTUOUS^{WITHOUT COSTS}

ul'{