Dismissed

S.P. Satish. v. The State of Telangana.

Telangana HC12 Aug 2025WP/9319/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to seize the passport of the third respondent. The Court held that in the absence of a police report or pending proceedings, such an order was ex facie improper.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no order as to costs. Pending applications closed.

S.P. Satish. Vs The State of Telangana. — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132171

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 9319 OF 2016}

¶7

Between:

¶8

S.P.Satish.,So.lateS.P.Sattaiah'Hindu.agedabout35yearsFl/o.PlotNo.1-36' Beside^{pinnacete earamoriiAf,Jrt-"ni. Funtf,rvitfri cotony, PanchavathiColony,} Manikonda.lk derabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana.,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary"Home Department} Secretariat. Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Station House^{Officer.,tr,4ahankaliPolice Station- lr'4ahankali'} Secunderabad.

¶13

T. Prema Latha @Mummy,^{Wo.Vijav Angnd a Striva Hin-du-aged about 39} i";;;. o; Br;iEis^{Rl/o.a-s-g1 io 93. Kurma Basthi., Secunderabad'}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndiq praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Courtmay be} pleasedtoissueaWritororderdirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof writ of ft/andamus^{under Art. 226 of constitution of lndia.the 3rd respondentby} trying to^{escape her liability and leave lndia for working as a house maid I servant} maid / housekeeping^{work with that type of VlsAunless the respondent by} seizing the^{passport immediatelywithoutresolvingthe pending issueby giving} further scope^{to escapethe liability of the 3rd respondent'}

¶16

l.A. NO:1 O^{F 2016(WPMP.NO:11805 OF2016)}

¶17

Pe tion under section^{151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} directrng the 2nd^{respondent to seize the passport of the 3rd respondent with an}

:'-'-+-

.--<l

immediate effect and to pass such other order or further c,r Jers as this Honoble High Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice .

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT.A.PADMA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : GP FOR HOME

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.3:

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

'i ,{: !',

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.9319 0F 2016

¶30

.,^ORDER

¶31

i'rl This writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliet i^.i

¶32

-, , "to issue a writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature i. of Writ of Mandamus under Arr. 226 of Constitution of India. the 3rd ,:, respondent by trying to escape her liability and leave India for working as a -- liouse maid I serudnt maid / housekeeping work with that tlpe of WSA. unless the Zld respondent by seizing the passport immediately wilhout resolving the "td - peiding issue by giving further scope to escape the liability of the 3rd

¶33

.::, respondent and fo pass".

¶34

None appears for the petitioner

¶35

I have heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, leamed Assistant

¶36

Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 ?

¶37

? and Ms.A.padma, leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶38

Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader would submit that a

¶39

\ \

¶40

counter has been filed by respondent No.2 and asserts that no

¶41

complaint has been lodged by the petitioner and no proceedings are

¶42

¶43

pending against respondent No.3 as on the date. He further submits

¶44

that in the absence.of any complaint or legal proceedings, seeking a

¶45

direction to seize the passport of respondent No.3 is untenable.

¶46

¶47

i. , .
lx:i
.#i
1**i:

¶48

¶49

<br>

¶50

I have perused the materials available on reco-( .

¶51

Considering the submissions and the alle 1 ation of the petitioner that respondent No.3 to escape her liabiJi y leaving the country and as per the prosecution/respondent No.l , there is no police report / complaint or any proceeding is pendir g against the respondent No.3, seeking a direction for seizing tt: passporl of respondent No.3 would be ex facie improp: and legally unacceptable.

¶52

7 . [n the circumstances, the prayer of the pe.i ione r stands

¶53

untenable and lacks merits for consideration. Accord r gly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶54

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shalI stand

¶55

closed I

¶56

¶57

SD/. AHI^\l ED ABDULLA KHAN ,,46 J STANT REGI //TRUE COPY// (\ fecfi6lr oFFrcER t

¶58

To,

¶59

'1 . One CC to SMT.A.PADMA, Advocate. [OPUC]

¶60

Two CCs to GP^{FOR HOME,High Court for the State rr Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶61

Two CD CoPies.

O- BSK TKS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210812025

ORDER

WP.No.9319 of 2016

.,,..s
(,)
1$ ii0 2{PI ,l
D. ,,1{- ;/
-..2''

¶69

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

S.P. Satish. v. The State of Telangana.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.P. Satish. v. The State of Telangana.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Koppula Srikanth Reddy, Hyderabad and 2 Others Vs Prl Secy, Home Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Gautam Chand Jain, Vs The Government of Telangana

Sri Bogam Kiran Vs The state of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary

E.Sudarshan Vs The State of Telangana

G. Ramana Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Prl. Secretary

Punreddy Devender Reddy, Hyd Vs Prl Secy, Home., Hyd and 3 Ot