Dismissed¶48

Rajadhani Motors., Represented by Proprietor, v. The State of Telangana, Represented by Principal

Telangana HC25 Aug 2025WP/7066/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court; WP.No.7066 of 2017; Justice N. Tukaramji; decided 25-08-2025; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ of mandamus; alleged police harassment by SHO PS Afzalgunj and SHO Traffic Police Station Sulthan Bazar, Hyderabad; petitioners' counsel conceded cause did not survive; AGP for Home raised no objection; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed; no merits adjudicated; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Recording the submissions of both learned counsel, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no costs. ¶34

Rajadhani Motors., Represented by Proprietor, Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

T3217 I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE tsp;i" STATE r'6|li5no"! OF Lt TFI HSflIi ANI?Ar,^^* ^r Ur,I^{HYDE RABAI)}

¶3

Mo N DAY' n{ E rwE F AU G u sr NI^t^jSH,,'A,"rg

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

P NN 7 F2 17

¶7

Between:

¶8

H*",?[{h$il,;;"*:ti?i"lFi,3lJ'"{[:l"d,o-yxf L,lo""3aul"s,:0,[Tg!1[H:l

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

bv Principar, secretary, Home '^{5!! jli|!,"J} u'slffx,'i [i3t?:B:'f:

¶12

The Station House Officer, pS Afzalgunj, Hyderabad., -

¶13

The Station House Officer, Traffic police Station,, Sulthan Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226-.of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in rhe affidavit nrlo in!rr*rir,, the High court may be pteased ro tssue an aooro'riate.*rii ;rj;;;, ;;"".iio.ii: ,oru particularty a writ in the nature of Mandamus tl o"cr"reir,e J"ti,i, iiiriJ'illrondents No. 2 and 3 in harassing the petitioners .as . iilegar "ioitirrv'"io unconstitutionar and na s'.u"'e' pi nl;;i{ d l" n",",. *,l p Jiiion ui' i I ;: ;::T# [:l]'.:S:'.'ff ,;: "

¶16

o oF 20 7

¶17

O:868 oF 20 7

¶18

ffi tr.lffi [*fl#{:{{*i$fl^{lf:i$[iF{*fl ';r,,###}

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI RA_TAGOPALLAVAN TAyt f,iJt",il%:1"" Tff ?:,T$il? 3[535^{;ffi'f 'av ^^ ,,}

¶20

¶21

I I

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

¶25

"...to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents No. 2 and 3 in harassing the petitioners as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequentially direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to harass the petitioner in day to day business activity and be pleased to pass....."

¶26

Heard Mr. Rajagopalallavan Tuyr, learned counsel for the

¶27

petitioners and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in this

¶29

Writ petition does not survive for adjudication and seeks to dismiss this Writ Petition as infructuous.

¶30

Learned Assistant Government Pleader takes no objection to the

¶31

same.

¶32

¶33

Recording the submissions of both the^{learnedcounsel,this Writ}

¶34

Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No^costs.

¶35

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall^{stand closed.}

¶36

Sd/.T.SRINIVAS^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to^{SRIRAJAGOPALLAVANTAYI,Advocate'[OPUC]}

¶41

Two CCs to GP^{FORHOME, High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶42

BSK 3. Two CD^CoPies. t SA f

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510812025

ORDER

WP.No.7066 of 2017

: --.tl,r'..,.i...
<br>(<br>>
Ofl rrr M
*
Ji r:r.., . ...',..,, 1
-- -: t_":"''=')"/

¶48

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

¶50

( N )o <sup>\ f

Rajadhani Motors., Represented by Proprietor, v. The State of Telangana, Represented by Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajadhani Motors., Represented by Proprietor, v. The State of Telangana, Represented by Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nayantara Nanda Kumar, Vs State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary

Chinthireddy Sarala Vs Gopu Narayan Reddy

S.Narsimlu Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Hameed Vs The State of Telangana

Kambalapally Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Rama Navami Utsava Samithi Vs The State of Telangana