Lambada Hakkula Porata Samithi, Rep v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed thtirewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or orders more particularly one in the nature, of writ of mandamus seeking to declare the inaction of the Respondents No. 1, to 6, in not taking any action upon the representations of the petitioner dated 07-01-2008, 15-12-2009, 04-10-2010. 28-10-2013. 06-11-2013 and 16-10-2015 against the Respondenl No.7 and I For their illegal activities regarding- to corruption took place while sanctioning the amounts for lndiramma Housing Scheme at Bhilyanaik Thanda, Dubba Thanda, Anthya Thanda, Lail Thanda, Omla Thanda, Chennaipalem Thanda and other Girijan Thandas in Mattampally Mandal, Nalgonda District, as arbitrary, illegal, violation of Principles of natural-justice and i consequently direct the Respondents No.'1 to 6 to forthwith ake necessary action both criminal and departmental against the Respondent No - and 8 by appointing CBCID Officer to conduct special investigation in the corr rption activities while sanctioning the amounts for lndiramma Housing Scheme cL'ing the period 2007- 2015 in the interest of justice r.A. NO:1 OF 201 WPMP. NO: 10853 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m,a 'be pleased to direct the Respondents No.1 to 6 .to forthwith take necessary act )n both criminal and departmental against the Respondent No.7 and 8 by appoitt ng CBCID Officer to conduct special investigation in the corruption activities / hile sanctioning the amounts for lndiramma Housing Scheme during the per c) 2OO7 -2O 15 in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition. I.A. N Ot20F 2016 WPMP. NO: 108s4 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci r umstances stated in the affidavil filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to harass the members of the Petitio I )r's Association and provide necessary protection to the life's and properties .o1 he members of the petitioner's association in the interest of iustice pending dispt ;al of the above writ petition. Coun Coun Coun Coun sel for the Petitioner: SRI J.RAMMOHAN RAO (NOT PF ESENT) sel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 5: GP FOR HOUSIN(; sel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR HOUSING sel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8: -- l The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.85 74 0F 2016 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed u'ith the following rel.ief: "...to issuc a writ ordcr or ordcrs more particularlr, onc in the narure of writ oI mandamus sceking to declare the inacdon of rhe Respondenr Nos.1 ro 6 in not taking any action upon the representanons of the pedtioner dated 07.01.2008 15.12.2009 04.10.2010 28.10.2013 06.11.2013 and 16.0+.2015 againsr rhe Respondenr Nos.7 and 8 for thcir rllegal activrries rcaarding t.) corruption ror.rk place whde sanctioning the amounts for lncLiranrmrr [ lousing Scheme ar Bhrlvanaik Thanda Dubba Thanda Anthva -l'liande l.ail l handa ( )mla Thanda Chcnnaipalcm Thanda aod r.,ther Ciirijan Thendas in l\{artampalh, Mandal Nalgonda Districr as arbitran. Icgal violatLon of Princrples of naruraljustice and conscqrentlv dr.ecr the Rcspondcrrrs Nos.1 ro 6 to fonhwith rakc necessarr acrion both criminal and ,kp.rrrnrcntal rgeinsr the Rcspondent Nos.7 and 8 bv appuinung ( R( II) ( )itlccr r,, r,,nducr spccial inr.esrigarion in rhc c,rrruption actirirics t,hilc sancrioning rlre amounts for Indiramma Housing Scheme during thc pcriod 20()7 2() I 5 in thc urtercst of jusrice.. . . . "

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner

3. Hearcl learned Assisrant Governmenr Pleader for Home appcaring for responclent Nos. 1 to 5.

4. The learned Assistant Gor.ernmenr Pleader for Home a submits that the relief sought in thepresent writ petition, namely, a direct.ion to the police authoriries to register a criminal case is not maintainable under Arricle 226 of the Constirudon of India, in vierv 2 of the well-settled legal position laid down by tli,: I{on'ble Supreme Court

5. I have pcrused the material placed on rec()I(

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essenc:, is that despite having submitted rvritten complaints dated 07.()l 2008, 15.12.2009,

04.i0.2010, 28.1().2013, and 0(r.11.2013, the , oncerned police authorities fa iled tc-, register a case. Agsrieved br uch inaction, the petitioner has inrrrked the u-rit iurisdiction of his Court under Article 226 ol the Constitutron of lndia, s,: :king a rvrit of mandamus directing the police aurhorities to regil.t :r a crime. l. The legal position governing such matters s rvell settled. In Sakin l'a.ra t'. .\.tate of U.P. c- Otl)ers (AIR 2()t8 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Conrt categoricallv held that s I en the grievance pertains t() the rcfusal oF rhe policc to rcgister a Iirst lnformation a Report (FtR), the remeclv o[ direcdi, approachinr the High Court under Article 22(r is ordinarilv not available. The ( rurt emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrI' C.") provides an J adequate and efficacious starutory framework to redress such gflevances.

8. This principle has been consisrendy reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notabiy, rn M. Sabrananiam a. S I Janaki dr Othen (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the t Hon'ble Supreme Court clariFted that the proper recourse for an aggrievcd parn- is to avail remedies under the Cr.P.C., inciuding approaching the Nlagistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C., rather than direclv inr-oking the extraordinary writ iurisdiction of the High Court.

9. In light of these settled Iegal principles, and in the absence of anl' exceptional extraordinary circumstances u'arranting inten,ention bv this Court under Arficle 226, the relief sought br. the petitioner cannor be entertained. The starutonr framework l provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate. The peutioner is, therefore, at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordancc with law-, should his grievance still subsist. 4

10. Accordrngly, with the above direcion, th : wrir petition is \ dismissed as not mainra.inable. There shall be no . rder rrs t() costs. \ To N,[iscellaneous Petitions, pending it anr', shal stan<i closed. //TRUE COPY// I\, SREENIVASA REDDY AS SISTANT REGISTRAR IJ' SECTION OFFICER Hyderabad. [OUT]

1. One CC to SRt J.RAMMOHAN RAO. Advocate fOpU : 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOUS|NG, Hign Court for'the S i te ot Tetangana, at 3. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State c 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] , Telangana, at PSK TJ a l HlGH COURT DATED:1210912025 I f ORDER WP.No.8574 ot 2016 1HE SI4 € /,, <" () () 2 2 JAN ?[2[ .i) \ t I I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT C(: STS a a I {