High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by decraring the action of the Respondent No. 2 to 4, who faired to consider the representations / complaint, dated zo.o3.2o2s, 19.04.202s in respect of initiating enquiry on the compraint of the petitioner of the incident date 19 '03-202s, where forcibry taken signatures of the petitioner on stamp papers which was tifled as Lease Agreement having recitals of Vacating the property and taking lease of property for one month ., further faired to co ect and preserve the cctv video footages of the instafled cc cameras of the said Respondent No.S i.e I l I l I Bibinagar Police station on 19 03'2025 between 1-30 Pm to 3-00 Pm' 3-30 Pm to 7-30 Pm and 8-20 Pm to B-55 Pm as illegal' arbitrary' violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14' 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No' 2 to 4 to initiate enquiry by collecting and preserving the CCtv video footages of the installed CC cameras of the Said Respondent No 5 i e Bibinagar Police station on 19'03 2025 between 1- 30 Pm to 3-00 Pm, 3-30 Pm to 7-30 Pm and 8-20 Pm to 8-55 Pm' IA NO: 10F 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 respondent No' 2 to 4 to collect and preserve the CCtv video footages of the instalred cc cameras of the Said Respondent No.5 i.e Bibinagar Porice station, between 1-30 Pm to 3-00 Pm' 3-30 Pm to 7-30 Pm and 8 -20 Pm to 8-55 Pm' of the incident date 19 03 2025' where forcibly taken signatures of the petitioner on stamp papers which was titled as Lease Agreement having recitals of Vacating the property and taking lease of Property for one month pending disposal o the above writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR - w Petition o.138 59 of 2025 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the .petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.t to 6, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had purchased the house property from M/s.A.p.Incubators under a registered sale deed dt.13.11.2024 and the said M/s.A.p.lncubators had, in turn, purchased the said property under SARFAESI proceedings initiated against M/s.Sannova Pharma Chemicals private Limited for recovery of financial facilities extended by Syndicate Bank, which got merged into Canara Bank in the year 2021.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that he is a bona fide purchaser of the subject propefty and the petitioner,s vendor suppressing the fact of pendency of S.A.No.419 of 2019 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short, ,the Tribunal) had sold the said property and on the aforesaid SA being adjudicated by the Tribunal, one Anjaiah Yadav along with his henchmen had corne to the petitioner,s premises and destroyed the Hatchery being done by them and also threatened his I people. I : 2 petitioner further contends that on the above named persons along

4. with their henchmen resorting to the aforesaid act, he had approached the respondents-authorities and lodged a complaint, on the basis of which' a case has been registered , videCrime No'97 of 2025 dt'09'03'2025'

5.Petitionerfurthercontendsthattherespondents-authoritiesinstead of taking action against the persons named in the aforesaid crime' K.Anjaiah and others, on the other hand, have called the petitioner to the police station and have taken his signatures forcibly, whereby it is stated that he would vacate and handover the premises'

6. Petitioner further contends that all the aforesaid actions have been done in the 5m respondent police station with the active connivance and involvement of the 6th respondent detaining the petitioner illegally in the police station on 19.03.2025.

7. Petitioner further contends that since the respondents-authorities have acted in connivance with Anjaiah and others in getting the petitioner's signatures forcibly, as if he has agreed to vacate the subject premises by illegally detaining him, he has approached the 3'd and 4th respondents on 20.03.2024 and submitted a representation and inasmuch no action is taken thereon, he had also approached the 2nd respondent on

19.04.2025 by submitting a representation. 3 B. petitioner further contends that if the CCTV footage of 19.03.2025 is ca'ed, the entire incident can be noted. Hence, the present writ petition is fired seeking a direction to the respondents-authorities to initiate enquiry by coflecting and preserving the ccrv footage dt.1g.03.2025 0f the 5th respondent police station.

9. per contra,learned Government pleader for Home appearing on beharf of respondent Nos'1 to 6 wourd submit that the petitioner having purchased the property, which is the subject matter of dispute before the Tribunar' onry in order to sta, the aforesaid order of the Tribunar being enforced, had come with the aforesaid plea. 10' Learned Government preader wourd further submit that if at a, the alleged incident, as claimed by the petitioner, had occurred on 79.03.2025, nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the higher authorities the following day or this Court thereafter; and that insofar as the petitioner approaching the respondents-authorities on 20.04.2025 is concerned, no material is placed before this Court to show that he had approached/taken steps to substantiate his case by approaching the respondents either in person or sending the complaint through registered

11. Learned Government pleader further submits that only as an afterthought and for the purpose of firing of this writ petition, the I t 4 petitloner had approached the 2nd respondent authority and submitted a representation after a month of the alleged incident asking for CCTV footage.

12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

13. Though the petitioner claims of he being a bona fide purchaser of the subject property under a registered sale deed executed by M/s.A.P.Incubators, admittedly, when the petitioner has purchased the subject propety, S.A.No.419 of 2019 was pending before the Tribunal filed by the original borrower, namely M/s.Sannova Pharma Chemicals Private Limited against the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

14. Further, the petitioner, having purchased the subject property from M/s.A.P. Incubators, is bound by the terms of sale deed, wherein the petitioner's vendor had made a statement that the subject property sold to him is free from any litigation.

15. Further, covenants of the sale deed would also show that in the event of any defect in title, the petitioner's vendor having undertaken to keep him indemnifled against loss or damage and also the expenditure that may be incurred by the petitioner herein. Though it is claimed of petitioner having initiated action against his vendor for passing on a i i I i I i 1 I I I I 5 defective title to him, no material substantiate the aforesaid claim. is placed before this Court to 16' Though it is further craimed that the order of the Tribunar having been stayed by the Appellate Tribunal, as noted hereinabove, no material is placed to the said effect.

17. Further, it is also to be noted that, the petitioner while claiming of he having obtained an order from the Apperate Tribunar against the order of the Tribunal in S.A.No.419 of 2019, whereby the proceedings initiated by the bank, which has extended financial facilities to M/s. Sannova Pharma Chemicals private Limited, having been set aside, if is aggrieved by the action of the respondents_authorities in illegally detaining him in the respondents police station and making him forcibly sign papers agreeing to vacate the subject premises and handover the same to Anjaiah and others. who are stated to be representing M/s.sannova Pharma Chemicals Private Limited, firsfly, as noted hereinabove, materiar is praced before this court of the petitioner approaching the next higher authorities with regard to the alleged illegal detention either on the following day or immediately thereafter; secondly, it is only after a period of one month, the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent authority and submitted representation craiming that he has been iregary detained and the Srme would be evident from the CCW footages, if the same are called for. 6

18. In this regard, it is to be noted that people who are alleging violation of their fundamental right of personal life and liberty ought to take steps immediately, if they are aggrieved by the said action of the respondents.

19. This Couft in similar circumstances, vide WPNI'7281 of 2025 dt.OT.O3.2)25,whereinaCCTVfootagehadbeensoughtfor,hadnoted that a request for such CCTV footage after a lapse of time is made only for the reason that the respondents-authorities would not produce CCTV footageofthesaiddate,asitisusuallyclaimedthattheCCTVstorage capacityforholdingfootageforlongerperiodisnotavailableanditisfor the said reason, such pleas are taken.

20. Since, in the present case, though the petitioner claims of he having been illegally detained in the 5th respondent police station on lg.O3.2025,inasmuchas,between19'03'2025,tillthepetitioner approached the 2nd respondent on L9.04.2025, no steps have been taken by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the said claim of the petitioner does not appear to be genuine claim and only in order to create evidence for the cases which are alleged to have been filed against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. I i i i I I I I i ! I I I I 7 21' Thus, the present writ petition as fired is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. 22 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shail stand closed. \ \ To, 1 2 J- TJ GJP //TRUE COPY// SD/. L. LAKSHMI BABU PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One CC to Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, Advocat OPUC] L*g C9. to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Ccpies ry. I i I HIGH COURT DATED:0110512025 ORDER WP.No.13859 of 2025 1 HE SIE FI o r o .\ (\ 31 Nt zffi i ,,.1 { Op Srr.,-r,_\r( DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS '/ I ?D