The High Court · 2025

K-Venkateshwertl-r,S/o.Ramulu,Age54years,Occlnspector/l)istrictLegal Metrology offirrc', liuryapet, Suryapet District' Ch. Savanna, 51l Aqe not known, Senior Technical Assistant' O'o' Dist Legal Metrology Offix' lvledchal Malkajgiri Dist' ...RES,PONDENTS Petition uncle-sir:,:tion 151 CPC praying that in the circu'nsti;nces stated in the affidavit filed in s,trpport of the petition, the High Court may b": pleased to vacate the ,n,"r'nl :rrJ:r dated O2tOgt2O21 passed in l A No'1 of :2021 in WP No.20797 of 2021 arri rl'smiss the Writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Between: Ch. Sayanna, S/o. Chitti Saheb, Age about 58 years, Occ: working as Senior Technical Assistant, O/o. Dist Legal Metrology Officer, Medchal fUatt<algiri Dist. ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 J The Controller, Legal Metrology Department State of Telangana, 209 PWD Buildings, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad -80. The Ex-Officio Secretary to Government, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. K. Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Ramulu, Age. 54 years, Occ. lnspector/District Legal Metrology officer' suryapet' suryapet Diskict' ...RES'.NDENTS 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 vacate the interim order dated : 02-09-202'1 passed in l.A. No 1 of 2021 in W.P. No. 207 97 of 2021 in the interests of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavil filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner/ respondent No,3 to file the additional material papers in the above WP.No.20797 of 2021 and receive the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES-II Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K.MURALIDHAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER 3 HON'BI..IE MRS. ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA. WRTI'PETITTON No.2O797 OF 2O2L ORDER: . Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, learned cotrtnsel appearing on belralf of the petitioner, learned Governlnent Pleader for S,ervices-Il appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l & 2 and Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3.

2. The oetiEqner aporoached the Court seekinq u:aver as under: "....to issLte tr Writ, order or direction more particttlarl'r one in the natuttr of Writ of Mandamus "(a) to ss ur) a Writ order or direction more particLllarly one in 1:he rature of Writ of Mandamus a by declarinl the entire :ctio I of the respondents particularly the rlntire action o'' tle 2nd respondent in issuing the present impugnerl rremo No.19B6|CS.ILM/2020 dated 02/O2l2O2t wherein b,u entertaining false appeal of the uncfficial respondent rrdering to kept in abeyance the erarlier proceeclingl:; \o.2002/E/2017 daled 08177/2lt2o issued in the capar:i:y rf 1't respondent is as highly illegal arbitrary unjust n,prolrer and contrary to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court as wr: I as orders of UGC including report of Ass stant Legal Nletrr> ogy and information furnished by Direc or of Distance Ecrrcation dated 04/02/2021 and letter rlated l6/06/',1C2:. lf the Secretary Telangana Stale Courcil of Higher ErJ rcation in the subject matter and set asirle or quash the srttrre. (b) ernC consequently to direct the respondent:i 1 3nd 2 not to consirlr:r the candidature of the unofficial resporrdent for furth,:r Fromotion to the post of Inspector of Legal 4 II\- r \r .ii I l4:llolggy in pursuance oF present impugned memo No. 1e86/CS lryt/zo?O dared oztoztzdii""it the 2nd respondent and also cancel the "nt.y-of e=.S. (fvutnr) Degree from the service ,egiste. 'of-' th'e unofficial respondent as same was obtained fro, ti_le- Janardhan Rainagar Vidyapeeth University UOuVpur Aa;arrthan State which was already declared as invalkj on" iilnu Honble Apex Court as well as UGC una otn"i .oite.neo ap", bodies and to pass....,,

3.7 v r e a ion r a e titi n rt t ronerl nsu DDOrt t e s e ffi AV t fit n writp titron, rs s u nder: It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as junior assistant during the year 7992 and subsequently basing on the petitioner,s eligibility, seniority and suitability petitioner was promoted to the revel of inspector of legal metrology during the year 2009 and working as such. The petitioner had made a complaint to the official respondents, as well as union government stating that the Hon,ble supreme court in civil appeal No 17869 of 2017, 17870 of 2017 dated 03_ 17-2017 cancelled all degree certificates granted by the Janardhan Rainagar, Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur, Rajasthan and the Joint secretary of UGC New Derhi vide retter dated 10_ 05-2019 had also informed that the UGC had not granted any approval to the said institution. Since unofficial respondent had 5 alsoobtainedhrsdergreeB.Sc[tvlaths]throughitsstudyt:entreat Archana Manradi ,lollege, Lalita Mahal cinema talkies toad' Nizamabad, thr)uc ll the said university, petitioner requ€rste(l authorities con<:et rtr:d to take necessaly action in thr: mattet and also requesteC tlre official respondents herein not to accorcl any benefittotlretlTofficialrespondentwiththeaboverdt;rgree certificate. It is the f u't rer the case of the petitioner that the unol'ficial respondent also rrade a representation to the 1't resportdent dated 17-08'20l.'i seeking further promotion to the po;t of Inspector of legel metrology basing on the B'Sc[Math!;] dr:lgree certificate isstlel by the Janardhan Rainagar, Vidyareeth University, Lldai[)rlr, Rajasthan on receiving the sam': the 1't respondent i';suerrl the necessary instructions to the conci:rned Assistant Controller Legal Metrology, RR District to enqulre in respect of r,:co(ltt tion and other aspects including validity of B.ScIMaths] dr:qr:e ceftificate issued by the said institution and based on a cleta l:d report furnished by the concerned Assistant Controller Leg,:l 14etrology, RR District the 1't respondent being the competent zrttthority issued a show cause notice (lated 30- Og-202O to thr: lnofficial respondent No 3 herein and duly considering the 3"i respondent's explanation furnished to the 1't 6 respondent dated 05-10-2020 answering the specific query of the 1st respondent that why entry made in the 3.d respondent,s service register with regard to the said degree should not be cancelled, the 1't respondent issued proceedings No. 2002/E/2017 dated 08-11-2020, urherein the 1't ;-espondent instructed the concerned Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, RR District, under whom the 3.d respondent is working to take necessary steps for cancellation of entry of B.Sc[Maths] degree in the service register of the unofficial respondent and submit compliance report. It is the further the case of the petitioner that the unofficial respondent No.3 made an appeal dated Z3-L2-2020 to the 2nd respondent aggrieved against the proceedings dated OB-11-2020 of the 1't respondent and surprisingly the 2nd respondent issued the impugned memo dated C2-02 -2OZL, ordering that the proceedings of the Controller Legal Metrology [FAC] issueC vide reference dated 0B-11-2OZO is kept in abeyance pending action. Aqgrieved by the same petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4.P R A.T e ED H t!re r e roceedi s No.2 o E 2ftL7 of 1rt Ll,.2 is extr ed he under: 7 Furthr-,r, ':lt1t entire contention made by the indiv dual is nothing but misleading the head of the departmt_.nt,rnd the claim of i:he individual for promotion based on bogus degree (:ortificate cannot be acceptable ir view of clarifir:aticrrr issued by the loint Secretary of UG(., New Delhi daf,:J 10-05-2019 r/w above referreC judgnrent of Hon'b,e l\ lex Cou rt. Hertc€t, the entry mbdi:- in the service re,Jistt,:r with regarci to the B.Sc (Maths) Degree acquired :y i:iri Ch. Sayann;:, Sir:n16; lu.nnical Assistant is hereby cancelled on the grotrnJ rlf non recognition of franchisee (stucy ct:nter). Theref'o-e, the Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, R.R. District is instructed to take necessary stel:)s for cancellaticln of entry of B.Sc (t\4aths) Degree in the r;ervice registelr,:f Sri Ch. Sayanna, Senior Technical As:,istant, office oF the District Legal Metrology Officer, Mr,rdchal- Malkajgrr; t)istrict and submit compliance report, B The jlppgoned order vide Memo No.19g6r/CS.I- LMI2o20_gf the 2nd respondent dated 02.02.2021 is extrac!qd_ here nder: Wherees, i I the reference 1.t cited the Controller, Legal Metrologiy, llyderabad has issued proceedings carceling the ertry rr the Service Register of Sri. rlH, Sa,,,anna, Senior Tr:r:hnical Assistant O/o DLMO, Medchal- Malkaj(li-ii)ist, wiih regard to the B. Sc( MAths) <legree acquired ly him from IRN Rajasthan Vidya pereth ( deemed) L niversity, Udaipur, on the grouncJ of Non- recognitior cf franchisee (Study Center).

2. Whert:as, in the reference 2nd cited Sri. CH. Sa1,anna, Senior Teclrnical Assistant O/o DLMO, Medchal-Maikajgiri Dist has fi'ed an appeal petition, wherein, stating ce.tain grounds n€ has requested the E.O.Secr,:tar,1 to Governrrerrlt, CA, &CS Dept, to set-aside the pr,rsgq,,6;ng5 1't cited of the Controller of Legal Metrology and consequently, to direct the concerned to restore the entry of .B.Sc. (Maths) Degree in his Service Register as was existing earlier and also to consider him for piromotion and all the consequential benefits.

3. Government after examination of the appeal petition and hereby orderthat the proceedings of the Controller Legal Metrology(FAC) issued vlde reference 1st cited is kept in abeyance, pending action. 4. The Controller oF Legal Metrology, Telangana, Hyderabadshall take necessary action, accordingly. c The Interim order of this court dated o2.o9.2 o2L Das sed in I.A No. 1 of 2O 21 whi ch are i n force as on ate tse tracted hereu nder:- 1 2 The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned Memo dated 02.02.2021 whereunder, the respondent No.2 passed orders keeping proceedings dated 08.11.2020 in abeyance. A show cause notice dated 30.09.2020was issued to the respondent No.3 pursuant to a complaint lodged by the petitioner in connection with the validity of B.Sc (Maths) Degree Certificate issued by the lanardhan Rai NqSgr Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University, Udaipur, Rajasthan State. In the said complaint lodged by the petitioner, it was stated that the said Degiee allegedly acquired by the respondent No.3 from the aforesaid University is not a recognized Degree. An explanation, dated 05.10.2020, was submitted by the respondent No.3 and a detailed enquiry was conducted bythe first respondent and an order dated0B.ll.ZO2O was passed directing the Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, Ranga ReddyDistrict to take necessary steps for cancellationof entry of B.Sc (Maths) Degree in the serviceregister of the respondent No.3.It wasspecifically pointed out in the proceedings dated 08.11.2020 that 9 all the Degree Certificates issued by thr3 al'oresaid Institutli:n were cancelled by the Supreme Co lrt vide itsjud(t"nent in Civil Appeal No.17869-1787t)/20t7, datec ().1.11.2017 and that the Degree Certificat,:) issued by :h: said Institution through its Study Certtres at sevt:rzr locations, including Nizamabad District, ir; nullity fo- all :he purposes including for the purpose ot'seeking prornc)tirln in the department with the :;aid invalid certifir: rte. It was also specifica llypointed c ut that the respc,nJent No.3 failed toproduce the recogr ition orders of UCirl ,rf theStudy Centre where he studied

3. Inter,sstingly, Mr. V. Anil Kumar, IAS (Retd.) of'ficiating in ther :apacity as Controller, Legal Metrology (FAC), Hyderatrad, has passed the order dated 0B.ll.2O2O canr:er l,ng the entryof B.Sc (Maths) Degree in the serVice register oftherespondent No.3. The vet.y same perrs;crnlvlr. V. Anil Kumar, acting as the respondentNo.2 (Ex-cf'f ir:io Secretary to Government) haspasr,;ed the inrpu;rrt:d order dated 02.O2.2027keeDing th(l order datr:cl 08. 1 1.2020inabeyance.

4. Prima 'acie, this court is of the view thatthe in pugned order is unsustainable not only for the reason I:hat Mr. V. /\nil Kumar whopassed the order dated 08.11.2020 irr; anappellate authority and kept the sa d order act€rc in aberl,ance, but also for the reason thai no prirna facie oprinior is recorded in the impugned orclerdated O)!,0-,!.1021 to differ with the findingsgiven n tlre order dertecl 08.11.2020 and forkeeping :;uch order in a f)e yil r (:e.

5. In tne circumstances. there shall be interim sus;rension, as Frre )/(rd fO r. D. The averments made bv the Petitioner n the a ffidavit filed bv the._Letitioner in partic _..12_and. 10 are d hereunder: I \- \, : 10

9. lt is further submitted that, the Director of Distance Education, Janardhan Rainagar, Vidyapeeth University, Udaypur, Rajasthan State is also issued clarification letter dated 04.02.2021 to the present 1't and 2no respondent, by enclosing list of study centers. ln the said list the name of study centre i.e., Archana Marwadi College, Lalitha Mahal, Cinema Talkies Road, Dubba, Nizamabad, where the unofficial respondent obtained his Degree of B.Sc (Maths) is not at all there. ln view of the above clarification dated 04.02.2021 of the Director of the above institution is also the very Degree certificate of the unofficial respor,dent is nullity for all the purposes. By virtue of the present impugned orders dated O2.O2.ZO2I of the 2nd respondent, if the unofficial respondent degree is recognized and on that basis his candidature is allowed for further promotions, the petitioner herein including, the persons who are working with valid degree courses will be put irreparable of and hardship in the matter of promotions.

10. lt is further submittcd that, it is reliable understand that, by taking advantage of present orders of the 2nd respondent, the unofficial respondent is pressurizing the 1't and 2nd respondents to consider his case for further promotion as lnspector of Legal Metrology by duly taking into consideration of his B.Sc (Maths) Degree obtained from the above bogus institution. lf same is allowed, the petitioner including many in service candidates will be put to irreparable loss, hardship in the matter of further promotion. ln the above circumstances there is no alternative to the petitioner, except invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon,ble Court. Hence the present WP for speedy justice. E The averm e n ts ade at para No. 9 f the Detition r's reolv affidavit is extracted hereunder:

9. lt is further submitted that, the fact remains that, in furtherance of letter dated 1-02-2021 of the 1't respondent, the Director of Distance Education janardhanrainagar vidyapeet university, Udaipur, Raiasthan vide his letter dated 4-2-2OZl, furnished a detailed information including enclosing the list of approved study centres established in the state of Andhra Pradesh (Erstwh ile) as Annexure. ln tl^^ <aid list the name of the study centre i.e, Archana \ .--a/ l,/ ,,./ /' 11 MarwaCi (lclege, Lalitha Mahal Dubbaka, of Nizmabad District where t re rrnofficial respondent obtained saic di:;putt,:d B.Sc (Maths) s rct there. Therefore, the question of corside'ing his claim cf p-r'Irotion with such invalid certificate d,les rot i,rrise. ln the evr:nt o' considering his claim of promotion with tht' above invalid cr:rtilir:ate, the genuine candidates like mr: wirl be put to irreparable lrss in the matter of further promotions. As thr:: above certificatrl is invalid one, However because of pressurt: yie ded by the unofficia respondent in warious levels, the 1't rc'spondent in the capacity of Ex-officio secretary passed wrong orders dat,:d 2-2- 2021.. F. The count,er affidavit filed by the 3'd respondent and in particular pirra Nos.26 and 28 are extracted heret nder:

25. I submit trat considering my appeal, the Ex-Officio :;ecr(,tary to Government had passed an interim order dated: O?--ll2-2O2L keeping ,.ht: order dated: 08-11-2020 issued by tre Contrcller of Legal Vetrc,lcgy in abeyance which was cha,lenged by the petitioner in t his writ petition. lt is relevant to submit that as per Rules tre,rr-' s an appeal to the Government against ttre orders of the Contro i:r of Legal Metrology which t have exercist:d. Just becausr: the s3me person is holding the said post, it cannot be said that sarr-'[)r]rson has passed the order. The original c,rder dated: 08-11-20.10'r'as passed by the original Authority and the interim order dated )2.07.2021was passed in the capacity of the appellate authority r,r'[rich cannot be find. Fault with.

28. With regarc ti) averments made in para 9 it is subrnitted th,rt once the cerl:if cate issued to me by the JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth is held to be pge rurrre one and the erstwhile Distance Eclucaliorr Council (DEC) had 3ranted ex-post facto approval to JRI\ Raiasthan Vidyapeetl, leemed University for the programs offereri by it through 11i:;,.;rnce mode till 2005, the clarification issued by the said universit) virl,: letter dated: 04-02-2021 about the study :enters have no 1'orce or cannot be considered at all. Therefor(), thrr order dated Cr2.0i:-2021 issued by the 2"d respondent is totally valid and legal and carl for no interference. / LZ DIS N ND CON IOL DIscu sroN:- 5. Learnedcounsel ADDearrnqon behalf of theDe tio er o n nd t o r m n o of he r s on en h t e d d r h ns: i) It is an order passed without any reasons ii) If the impugned order is allowed to stand in the eye of the law not onry the petitioner severar other service candidates who are working with valid degree courses will be denied their tegitimate promotions leading to irreparable hardship to them. iii) The l't respondent being Controlter of Legal Metrology[HoD] is arso hording the post of Ex-officio secretary to Government i.e., in. the capacity of 2nd respondent'since the name indicated in the order dated O8-11-2O2O and O2-O2-2O21 is one and same i.e., V. Anil Kumar. 13 Based oD--!he aforesaid submissions the le arned !elttends sel AD DE a rin onb lf of the DEtition er u n t he writ D a t nha t a o s f e f 6 Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the responclent Nos' 1 and 2 placing reliance o'n the averments made in the counter affidavit contended that the writ petition needs to be dismissed' 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3'd respondent placing reliance on the averments nradt:r in the counter affida,,rit filed by the 3'd respondent contends that the petitioner has no locus to file the present writ lretition sincethepetitionerhasnolegalrightonhisownand since he is not suffered any legal injury' 8 ea rn L e a n beh tf of th e r n he ll w d nle nts in resDondent-EI c ort oft su p 3td re DOn dent s case: - i) The judlgment of the High Court of Andhra Pri;rdesh at Amararr,athi in Sk.Abdul Khadar Jelani Vs' State of AP in 2022 IS]ALD 54i1, dated and Others rePorted L9.a"t.1r-022 74 ii) The judgment of the Supreme Court in Gadde Venkteswara Rao Vs. Government of A.p. & Others reported in AIR 1966 SC page No 828. iii) The judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs Ram Chandra Dev reported in AIR 1964 SC Page No 685 iv) The judgment of the Supreme Court in vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.p. reported in AIR 2OO1 SC page No 1739 NCL ION:-

9. In so far as the plea of locus standi of the petitioner is concerned, this court takes note of the fact that petitioner made a complaint to the official respondent herein and also to the union government pertaining to the subject issue. The said fact is also admitted at page 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that petitioner filed representation dated 1g-06- 2019 and L4-O9-2OL9 against the 3.d respondent on his degree qualification. petitioner also explained how petitione.r is an aggrieved person at para Nos.9 and 1O of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition and also at para No.9 of the t petitioners rePlY affidavit IReferred to exllracted opines that petitioner has th(:r abovel.This r:ourt 'ocus standi to file present writ petition as per the obserrrations of the apex crlurt in the judgement given below'

10. The AlClicourt in the iudoement' dated 16'O4':ZOOI in inA 200 s,c 739 of Pre rt mar \/ .st n a din oa rticLr la r t '2', d r "Genera ll'7 speaking, a person shall have no lor:us r';tandi to fiie a wri: petition if he is not personally affercteri by the irnp,. q',r =, order or his fundamental rights lrave neither beer'- C t-t:i:tly or substantially invaded nor ir; tl- ere any immine"t danger of such rights being invadecr or his aiquir,:,1 inteiests have been violated iqnoring the uppil.otri,, rules. The relief under article 226 of the constil.Ll.icn is based on the exlstence of a rigtht tn favour of the prtrrson invoking the jurisdiction' The exct'rption to th" ,3.n,, -al rule ls only in cases where the wr t a6;plied for is a v'/rit of habeas- corpus or quo warrant() or filed in public in t e rest. 1 1. This t:ourt opines that in the present crase the averments nrade by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitionr:r in support of the present petition at para Nos.9 and LCt and also the averments made at p:irra No'9 of the repl)'| affidavit filed by the petitioner clearly indicates that the petitioner apprehends imminenl: danger of invasion of petitioner's fundamental rights ptrrrtaining to his promortion and also several others similarly situated -t 15 service candidates. Hence, this court holds that petitioner is an aggrieved person.

12. In so far as the impugned memo in the present Writ Petition is concerned i.e., memo dated 02.02.2021 of the 2nd respondent, this court opines that as righfly observed in the interim orders of this court dated O2.O9.2O21 in I.A No. 1 of 2021 there is no prima facie opinion recorded by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order dated O2.O2.2OZL to differ with the findings of the 1't respondent given in the order dated 09.11.2O20 and for keeping the said order in abeyance.

13. A bare perusal of the impugned memo dated O2,O2.2O2L of the 2"d respondent indicates that the same is bereft of reasons and further it is borne on record that the 1"t respondent being controiler of legal metrology (HOD) is also holding the post of ex-officio secretary to the government i.e., in the capacity of the 2"d respondent and the names indicated in the orders dated Og.l1.2O2O and (J2.O2.2021 are one and the same i.e., Mr. V Ani! Kumar who passed the order dated O8.11.2O2O acted as J an appellant authority and kept the said ordr:r in abeYance. t4. Taking into consideration the fact as borne on t"ecord that there is no prima facie opinion recorded by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order dated fJ2'O2'2021 to differ with thr: findings of the 1"t respondent given in the order dated Ott.11'2O2O and for keeping the said order in abeyance witlhout recording any single reason this' Court opines that lllre petitioner is entitled for the rellief as prayed for in the present writ petition'

15. Tak TN rnto considerat aon: a) The aforesaid circumstances b) The subrmissions made by the learned r::ounsel appearing r:n behalf of the petitioner' learned Gove'rnment PleaderforServices-Ilappearingonbehalfofthe respondentNos.l&2andlearnedcounselappearingon behalf of the resPondent No'3' c) The corntents of the order vide proc'eedings No.2OO2/E/'.2AL7 of the 1"t respondent dated O8'111'2O20 (referred to and extracted above) l 18 rmpugned the 2nd d) The contents of the order vide Memo No.1986/CS.t-LM/Zozo of respondent dated O2.O2.ZO2L (referred to and extracted above) in abeyance without recording any reasons or a prima facie opinion e) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. I an<l 2. f) The averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition in particurar para Nos. g and 10 ( referred to and extracted above) and the averments made in para no. 9 of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner explaining petitioner,s locus to file the presetrt writ petition. 9) The interim orders of this court dated OZ.OL.2OZ- passed in favour of thc petitioner which are in force as on h) The observations of the vorious Courts in the judgements (referred to and extracted abcve) i) ii) iii) iv) 2022 I5]ALD s42 AIR 1906 SC page No 828 AIR 1964 S€ page No 685 AIR 2OO1 SC page No 1739 The Writ petition is altowed and the impugned memo No. 1985/CS.I-IM/2OZO, dated AZ.O2.2A2| issued in the 19 capacity of lZ''r respondent and signed as V. Anil Kumar, ex-officio secretary to the government is set aside. Miscellan 3ous petitions, if any, pending in thls \A/rit Petition, shall st,: n c c l :sed. That Ru,e Nisi has made Absolute as above witness Hon'ble SRI SU,J CY PAUL, The Acting Chief Justice on this T hursday, the First Day of May, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. SD/.A. SRINI\/ASA REDDY ASSISTANl REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I I) ''L sEcrpN oFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI Nr{NDA (For Her LadYshiPs Kind Perusal) The Controll,.r. -egal Metrology Department State of Telangana, 209 PWD Buildings, (izrnclhi Nagar, Hyderabad -80. The Ex-Ofiic,o fir-'cretary to Government, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies DeF)artrnent Stite of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings. Hyderabad. 11 LR Cop er; The Under Sec r:tary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice rrnd Company Affairs, N erv ) .- llt . The SecretzrnT, Telangana Advocates Association, Lib rary High Court Buildings. llyd: r abad. One CC to SRI ArLVlND KUMAR KATA, Advocate [OPIJC] One CC to Stll l'l MURALIDHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs t,: GF' F'OR SERVICES-II, High Court for the State ol Telangana at Hyderabad [OtJ1.] Two CD Cop es The To, 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 o BSR BS L&-.-,.. / HIGH COURT DATED:01 105t2025 CC TODAY (l ,.-\;.. Ar !j ,/ ti'r: ?i,lt 2l a. ,'.\. r i\ .;_ li .);' 7 .,7 i/ ORDER WP.No.2079V ,cf 2021 ALLOWING TIHE WRIT PETITION' WITHOUT COSTS /4 4 ,,s / 7 /9,/.(.9-