Disposed¶42

Jangam Siddhartha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC29 Dec 2025WP/38849/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana HC WP 38849/2025 (29.12.2025), Jangam Siddhartha v. State of Telangana & others: challenge to termination of Assistant Legal Aid Defense Counsel (LADCS) in Dis. No. 903 of 2025 dt. 15-11-2025 for want of notice, citing natural justice and Arts. 14/16/21; disposed of after petitioner tendered resignation dt. 17.12.2025 and respondent No.3 agreed to consider it; no costs; no merits ruling; interim IA under S.151 CPC stands closed; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; the writ petition challenging the termination was disposed of on the submission that respondent No.3 would consider the petitioner's letter of resignation dated 17.12.2025, and no order was made as to costs. No ruling on the merits of the termination or the alleged violation of natural justice. ¶42

Jangam Siddhartha Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders in Dis. No. 903 of 2025 dated 15-11-2025 terminating the petitioner's services as Assistant Legal Aid Defense Counsel (LADCS), issued without notice or calling for explanation, are illegal, null and void, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, entailing their being set aside with a direction to continue the petitioner's services.

¶16

Court's answer

W.P.No.38849 of 2025 is disposed of on the submissions made on behalf of respondent No.3 (that respondent No.3 would consider the petitioner's letter of resignation dated 17.12.2025), with no order as to costs.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Miscellaneous applications, if any, in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (Special Original Jurisdiction); W.P. No. 38849 of 2025; per Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya; decided 29.12.2025. The petitioner, an Assistant Legal Aid Defense Counsel (LADCS), challenged under Article 226 his termination by respondent No.3 (District Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad) in Dis. No. 903 of 2025 dated 15-11-2025, alleging it was effected without notice or explanation, in violation of natural justice and Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, and sought quashing and continuance in service; an interim application under Section 151 CPC sought suspension of the termination order. At the hearing, the petitioner's counsel placed on record a letter of resignation dated 17.12.2025 addressed to the District Legal Services Authority, Nampally, and learned Standing Counsel for TSL&SA submitted that respondent No.3 would consider that letter. The Court accordingly disposed of the writ petition on those submissions, made no order as to costs, and closed miscellaneous applications. The merits of the termination were not adjudicated.

¶1

[^34el ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENry NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 38849 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Jangam Siddhartha, S/o. Sudhakar, Age. 28 Years, Occ. Advocate, R/o. H. No. 7-7-366/1/C, Mulugu Road, Kapuwada, Hanamkonda Proper and Distrlct.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Law and Legislature Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

The State Legal Services Authority, represented by its Member Secretary, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Principal Diskict Judge/Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad District, at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶14

The ll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Cum Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad District, at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed theiewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ declaring the orders passed by the respondent No. 3 authority in Dis. No. 903 oI 2025, dated^'15-1 1-2025, terminating the services of the petitioner as Assistant Legal Aid Defense Counsel (LADCS), without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without calling any explanation from the petitioner and simply saying that, the said orders were issued as per the proceedings of the respondent No. 2 authority, dated 1 5-1 1-2025 without furnishing the copy of the said proceedings, is nothing but illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural^justice and also violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 ol the Constitution of lndia. Consequently set aside the said orders, thereby direct the respondent

¶17

authorities to continue the services of the petitioner as A:i,istant Legal Aid Defense Counsel (LADCS)

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circu r stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nr ry be pleased to suspend the orders in Dis. No. 903 of 2025, dated 15-1 1-20,2;, passed by the respondent No.2 authority, thereby direct the respondent auttrr rities to continue the services of the petitioner as Assistant Legar Aid Defense co.r rser (LADCS).

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI K.VENUMADHAV COUNSEI fOr thE RESPONdENT NO.1: GP FOR1AW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Counset for the Respondent Nos.2 a s: snf FUiLUR| sHASHt .RAN, sc FOR TSLSA counsel for the Respondent No.4: --

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

HIGH CO^{URT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT I{YDERABAI)

¶24

THE HON'BLE^{JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA} AND THE HON'BLE^{JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR}

¶25

WRIT PETITIO^{N No.38849 OF 2025}

¶26

DATE OF ORDE^R29.12.20.25

Betweeen

Jangam Siddhartha.

...petltloner

And

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by^{its PrincipalSecretary to Lawand} t.gi"trtrr.. Department,^{SecretariatBuildings,Hyderabad} and three others

¶32

...respondents

¶33

Mr. K.Venumadhav,^{leamed counsel appearing for the petrtioner'}

¶34

Mr. Pusluri Shashi^{Kiran, the lcarncd Standing Counsel forTSLSAappearing for the} respondent Nos.2^and3.

¶35

ORDER:^{(Per Hon'ble Justice MoushumiBhattacharya)}

¶36

Learned counsel^{appearing for the petitioner placesa} letter of resignation^{given by the petitioner ot17 '12'2025to} the District^{Legal ServicesAuthorily,Nampally, Hyderabad'}

¶37

The learned Standing^{Counsel appearing forthe}

¶38

respondent^{Nos.2and 3 submitsthat the respondent No 3}

¶39

shallconsidertheletterofresignationgivenbythepetitioner.

¶40

¶41

W.P.No.38849 of 2025 is accordingly dispo:; <1 ol on the submissions made on behalf of the respondent {o.3. There

¶42

shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous applications, if any, in this V rit Petilion,

¶44

shall stand closed.

¶45

SD/- K.MADHAVI ASS,I ;TANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal secretary^{to the Lawand LegislatureDepa1ment, Secretariat} Buildings, Hyderabad,^{State of Telangana-}

¶51

The Mdmbei Secretary,^{State LegalServices Authority,I lyderabad} . 5. The Principal District^{judge/Chaiiman,District Legal Se'rrices Authority,} Hvderabad District. at Nampallv, Hvderabad.

¶52

+. ifie lt nOational Chief^{Metropolitari Magistrate Cum Sec 'etary. District Legal} Services Authority, Hyderabad^{District, at Nampally,Hyc:rabad'}

¶53

One CC to SRI K.VENUMADHAV,^Advocate [OPUC] O. f*o CCs to GP^{FOR l-AW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,H} 5^{h Court for the State} of Telangana, at HYderabad. [OUT]

¶54

One CC-to SRI PUSLURI^{sHAsHlklRAN,SC FORTS,l SA} [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies

PSK

PSK

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212025

ORDER

WP.No.38849 of 2025

--:- .' ::-'-:-::'--,
r: ., -, la:(t.-,,,... -:l'Sr
.//
,'/a < ' /,.-<br>ii o-- tr'i:
,/ 5'
ife
t."'. ) 2! [tt ?il?l ,,l
,.:".::" ,:" jt
..r'1
.-,4,
t, ' t'/
r;., +,
'r.'
,jla l.).i.r-.i)\1.iy'
..:'-*- .. ':'.)''

¶63

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

11
0
9/
"q

Jangam Siddhartha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jangam Siddhartha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.N. Mahesh Prasad Vs Optimus Drugs Private Limited

K.N. Mahesh Prasad Vs Optimus Drugs Private Limited

Dyaga Sudharshan Vs M.A Haleem

Sri Chintala Surender Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Qazi Syed Mukthadir Ali Quadri Vs The State of Telangana

V. Prasada Rao Vs The Chief Engineer(civil)