Dismissed

R. Sarayya v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC11 Apr 2025WP(TR)/833/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana considered a writ petition under Article 226 challenging police disciplinary proceedings. Upon observation that the petitioner is aged about 48 years at the time of the hearing and no interim order was granted earlier, the court closed the writ petition, with liberty to approach the Commissioner if there is a grievance, and passed no order as to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

R. Sarayya Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

FRIDAY,^{THE ELEVENTH DAYOF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO^{N TRANSFERED NO:833 0F 2017}

¶7

Between:

¶8

R. saravva, s/o^{Late R. Gandaiah, Aged about} -4^8-years'^{occ workinqas PC1560} f"i!i"Li[;;""i";;;;";l),'^{Fv;."i'"N;r+s-oas' Gowriwada' Zumarath Bazar'} Hyderabad-6

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1- The Government^{of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal, Secretary, Home} Department,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad}

¶12

2, The Director^{Generalof Police, Lakadikapool'Hyderabad'}

¶13

The Commissioner^{of Police,(Lakadikapool'Hyderabad'}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in if," uffiJuuitfiled therewith' the High Court may be} ;i;;;;^{i" i;tue a writ, Directionor an order more particularlyone in the nature} of Writ of^{Mandamusto ..ir.iO" tn" proceedings DO No' 2279'dated 10-6-2011} issued by the^{3rd respondentand consequential proceedingsNo' Dis} No.2066/Appeal-212o1r,^{oLi"J-io-+-2012issuedby the 2nd respondentbv} holding the^{same rs irrega['Jrbitirry, ,nr"r.onable and violation of principles of} natural^justicerno "on.eqr.ntiv^{Jir""t the respondentsto reinslate the applicant} into service^{as police constabie withall consequential benefitsand pass such} order or orders.

¶16

Counsel^{for the Petitioner : SRI R'SATYANARAYANAMURTHY}

¶17

Counsel^{for the Respondents:GP FOR HOME (SER')}

¶18

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶19

THE HON'BLIi-S 3I^{JUSTICENAMAVARA} HWAE-RAA

¶20

WFlI I PETITIO^{N (TR)No.833 0F 20 77}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

When the rr^{rr,ter is taken up, it is observed that,rt the time of} filing of O.A.No^(i,)j of^{2013,the petitioner is.agedabolt 48 years,} seeking to set aside the^{proceedingsD.O.No 227'9 dated} 10.06.2011 issu :: by respondent^{No.3 and :on::equential} proceedings Dis.l'l ; 2066/Appeal-2/2011, dated^10.04.201.1.

¶23

Learned^(:: rrsel for the petitioner submittr:tl that^the petitione i- is no: ir (rontact with him and moreover no irtte'rim order was^g ra ntecj earri(^|

¶24

In view cf t 'il above submission, this^{Writ Petitic,n is closed.} However, if ih :^,|titioner has an 7^grievance, he^{is .lt liberty to} approach the Crr l. There shall be^{no orderas} to^costs.

¶25

As a seqL e r , rriscellaneous applications^{pending,if a} ry,^{in this}

¶26

Writ Petition, str;:l ;tand e losed-

¶27

SD/- B.G.!'YJAYANTHI STAT\IT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// P SECTION^OFFICER

¶28

To, 12 ONC Two CC CCs^{tO to SRI G[) [: Ii:, ] ] ATYANARAYANA MURTHtt HOME (SER )' High Court for} Advocate.^{the State} iC'Pl..lCl^{of -l'elangana} tourl

¶29

Two^{CD CoPies}

BSK

KV $otc,.

re^--*'

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 1t\4t2,tt2i

.-:-
1rt..'il4
*oi+ t
f
(('(
(.)
2 z l'rv 2gg C,
,/
{
o t
.--:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

WP(TR).No.833 <r1 2017

¶38

.gLgslNG^{rHE wR 1r} PEflfloN WTHOUT COSTSi

¶39

¶40

.\g>(

R. Sarayya v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

R. Sarayya v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.M.v.Subba Rao Vs The State of Telangana

K. Radhakrishnama Radhakrishnama Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Bonala Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Mohd. Khaja Ahmed Hussain Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Jaishankar Vs The State of Telangana

Safia Sultana Vs The State of Telangana