The High Court · 2025

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 direct the respondents act on the petitioners representation date 6-11-2017 to i cause an enquiry v/ith r cont,n u ins as o u tso urci ns li,::" :", "tT"t:i1.,iJ::::":l studying Law as regular student at p.lvl R. Law College C R P before this Hon,ble Court re 3rrJ respondent in I rw D(]partment, while r :ndingy disposal of the Counsel for the petitioner: counser ror the Respondent No.1 - ,,^:#?jHtiU,,r_.T,]i,Hf+,r= SRI MUDDANA KOTESWARA F AO (irror pRESENT) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A.SAI CHAKRAVAR Hy The Court made the following: ORDER AFFATR' i .i - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI ORDER: WRIT PETtTtoNNo.418 oF 20.r8 This writ petition is fired under Articre 226 0f constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: ' ,1o i9su9 an order, dipcltol or a writ pafticularty one jn the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction oflihL responOents t to 2 in failure to take appropriate action on t-he representation submitted by the petitioner on oa-tiiottZ,i ii"g"t and arbitrary and consequen y direct the ,espondenii to "ri"" ,, enquiry on the representation which , was submttted by the jetitioner and take appropriate acton with regar! t9 tne iilegZt app;iitment oOta,ie.J ii the 3rd respondent .ai Date pr*ii"iit -oit,cer n the 1st respondent depaftment, and pass. ....

2. None for the petitioner

3. Heard Mr.D.Surender Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Law and Law Legislative Affairs appearing for respondents No..l and 2 and Mr.A.Sai Chakravarthy, learned counsel for unofficial respondent No 3

4. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Home submits that the present writ petition has been fired charenging the inaction of the respondent authorities in taking appropriate action on the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 06.11.2017. rt is further submitted that, from the record, it appears that the petitioner has not pursued the matter diligenfly, and therefore, the cause of action has become infructuous or desolate. I i I I i i -:rsiffi 2

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent I o.3 submits that respondent No.3 is merely an outsourced empl tree and has no role in the subject matter of the writ petition lt is lrrther submitted that respondent No.3 is presenfly pursuing legal 1 rofession in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and therefore, no (ause of action survives against him Hence, learned counsel pr i ys that the writ petition be disposed of appropriately.

6. I have perused the material placed on recorc

7. The grievance of the petitioner, as set out ir he writ petition, pertains to the alleged inaction of the responderr t authorities in considering and acting upon his representation dil ed O6.1j.2017. However, it is seen that considerable time has e i psed since the filing of the writ petition, and there has been ro subsequent representation or follow-up action by the petitionr:t This, coupled with the submission of the learned Assistant Gover rment pleader, clearly indicates that the petitioner has not pursuerl the matter and has effectively abandoned the cause.

8. lt is a settled principle that where the prr tioner fails to pursue his grievance or the cause of action cees _5s to exist by efflux of time, the writ petition becomes infructuous tSee: lJnion of .lndia v. Sushil Kumar Modi, (1998) 8 SCC 661, K.K Bhaila v. Stgte, 3 of M.P., (2006) 3 SCC 581"). The Court, however, may preserve the right of the petitioner to approach the competent forum again if the cause revives or a fresh grievance arises. 9 ln these circumstances, and without expressing any oplnlon on the merits of the representation, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedies available in law, if the cause of action still survives or fresh grounds arise in future'

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of' There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/ -T. SRINIVASA REDDY S ISTAN T REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The Law Secretary. Law Department' A Block' T langana Hyderabad, State of Tel The Drawrng and Disb Secretariat, HYderabad' angana ursing Offrcer, Law Department, A Block' Telangana Secretariat, 3 One CC to SRI MUDDANA KOTESWARA RAO Advocate TOPUCI 4. One CC to SRI A.SAI CHAKRAVARTHY' Advocate IOPUCI 5 Two CCs to GP FOR LAW & LE-Gl.qlSIlVE AFFAIRS' High Court for the " iiri"-oii"lingrn, at Hvderabad [oUT] 6. Two CD CoPies BSR BS fuL HIGH COURT DATED: 15110t2025 ORDER WP.No.4418 of 2O1B THII '1 6 *1R ?02[ t EAT , .(, i , * *t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS tr)tU )-\)-6 >9 \ I I l I i I I I I I I I l *-.*,