P.Damodara Prasad, Vs Express… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

P.Damodara Prasad, Vs Express… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution without costs and pending miscellaneous applications were closed. The substantive challenge to the Tribunal's order was never adjudicated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the long-pending writ petition seeking certiorari against the Tribunal's order dated 06.10.2007 in I.D.No.130 of 2006 should be dismissed for non-prosecution, given the petitioner's repeated non-representation when listed under the caption 'For Dismissal'.

Court's answer

Though the matter was listed under the caption 'For Dismissal', there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, and it appeared that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Key takeaways

There shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶31
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this writ petition, shall stand closed.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 9511 of 2008 — High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Special Original Jurisdiction); Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao; decided 15.09.2025. A 2008 writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a journalist petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to set aside the Order dated 06.10.2007 in I.D.No.130 of 2006 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, in a dispute involving Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. An accompanying application (I.A. No. 1 of 2008; WPMP No. 12550 of 2008) under Section 151 CPC had prayed for calling for records pending disposal. On 21.08.2025 and again on 15.09.2025, when the matter was listed under the caption 'For Dismissal', there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner; interim postings on 28.08.2025 and 04.09.2025 also produced no prosecution. Concluding that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the matter, the Court DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON-PROSECUTION; there shall be no order as to costs; miscellaneous pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No precedent was cited and the merits of the underlying industrial-dispute grievance were not adjudicated.

l

[³³⁰⁴ ]

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

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 9511 OF 2008

Between:

f^{Dgp_o{arg Prasad,Sd/o.} _Venkatara1.?nappa,^Joumalist, Rl/o. 3_6-4497,Ftat' No.304, Saikrupa Apartments, 7th Street, Himayithnagar, HyO6ra'O-aO_SOO OZg.

...PETITIONER

AND

'l . Express Publications{Madurai)Ltd-, Express Estates, Mount Road, Chennai_ 600 O0-2. Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director, Sri Marrcj tumai^- Sonthalia.

Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd., plot No.2, Behind Blue Moon Hotel. Beg.umpet, Hyderabad- 500 016. Rep by its Regional Manager, Sri^{- '} Junjunwala,

The Additional lndustrial rribunal4um-Additional Labour, court, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the a{fidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for records in 1.D.No.130 of 2006 on the file of the Additional lndustrial rribunal-cum-Additional Labour court, Hyderabad and set aside the Order, D1.06.10.2007 in the said l.D.

l.A. NO: I OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 1 2550 0F 2008)

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 pleased to call for records in |.D.No.130 of 2o06, dated 6.1o.2007 on the file of the Additional lndustrial rribunal-cum-Additional Labour court, Hyderabad pending disposal of the main writ petition.

!

Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s.BODDULURI ASSOCIATESi

Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : SRI S.RAVINDRAN,I [H

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Gp FOR LABOUR

The Court made the following: ORDER

t.

n

THE HON'BLC^{SRT ]USTICENAMAVARAPURA'ESHWAR RAO}

TP N o 1 OF 8

ORDER:

' When the matter^{was taken up forhearing on} 21.08.2025,^{there was no representationon behalfof the petitioner'} Accordingly,^{the matter was directed to be listed on 28'08'2025under the} caption^{"For Dismissal". On 28'08'2025, at the request of the learned} counsel for^{the petitioner,the matter was posted to 04'09'2025'} Subsequently,^{on 08.09.2025,the matterwas directed to be postedto} 15.09.2025^{under the same caption, i'e', "For Dismissal"'}

Today,^{though the matter islisted under thecaption} ..ForDismissal",thereisnorepresentationonbehalfofthepetitioner' It appears that^{the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter'}

dismissed^{for non-Prosecution'} 3. Accordingly,^{this Writ Petitionis} There shall^{be no order as to costs'}

As a sequel,^{miscellaneousapplications peMing, if any, in this writ}

Petition,^{shall stand closed'}

REDDY ISTRAR r3'E{lEt8

/ITRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The^{Additional lndustrial Tribunal-Cum-AdditionalLabor'rr' Court' Hyderabad'}

One^{CC to M/s'BODDULURI ASSOCIATES'Adrocate' IOPUCI} 3.^{Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR' High Court for the Staeof Telangana' [OUII} 4. One^{CCto SRI S RAVINDRANATH'Advocate' [OPUCI}

5.^{Two CD CoPies'}

BSK Pflc,.TKS

HIGH COURT

' DATED:1510912025

i rtSln
t
c ,
() 2 Ii JAN ?[?E c)
.r.. il
7
''../
, I <-ht]'"r i'
- a'-:-:-.-. ''

ORDER

WP.No.9511 of 2008

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

ts\t'l^>{