IVI. Rama Krishna v. Director General of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Bench
- PULLA KARTHIK
Outcome
Disposed of
opinion on the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Having re gard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the objections dated
Judgment
Cause title
IVI. Rama Krishna, S/o (Late) [rl. Srinivasa Rao, Age 60 Yrs, Occ Commandant, Rl/O Bth Bn, TGSP, Kondapur ...PETITIONER
AND 1 State of Telangana, Rep by its Prl Secretary, Dept of Home, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 3 4 A Director General of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad Addl Director General of Police Bns, Telangana Special Police, Hyderabad Mr P Murali Krishna, (RSl of 1991 Batch) Commandant, 15t Bn TGSP, Yusufguda, Hyderabad lMr PJPC Chatterjee, (RSl of 1991 Batch) Commandant, lSW, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 in issuing the memorandum vide Rc No. 488/G312024, dated 31 .O8.2024 and consequential memorandum vide Rc No. 11231A112024, daled 05.O9.2024 without following the due process of law and without considering the facts /objections as arbitrary, illegal, against rule of law, natural justice and also violation of article 14,21 ot Constitution of lndia Consequently, direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to amend the memorandum vide Rc No. 488/G312024, daled 31 .O8.2024 and consequential memorandum vide Rc No. 11231A112024, daled 05.09.2024 by following the I procedure of law and considering the facts/objections and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the memorandum vide Rc No. 488/G312024, dated 31 .O8.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 and consequential memorandum vide Rc No. 112314112024, dated 05.O9.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 3 including all consequential promotions like DIG (N/c), if any, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI DR.D.V.RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.26828 OF 2025
ORDER:
With the consent ol the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliel "...to issLe a Wit, Order or dtrection more parttcularly one in the nature oJ Wit of Mandamus declaing the action of the Respondent No.2 & 3 in issuing the memorandum uide Rc No-488/G3/2024, dated 31.08.2024 and coftsequential memorandum uide Rc No.1123/A1/2O24, dated 05.09.2024 utithout follouing the due process of law and .uithout consideing the facts/ objections as arbitrary, illegctl, against rule of laut, natural justice and also uiolation of article 14, 21 of Constttution of India. Consequentlg, direct the Respondent No.2 & 3 to amend the memorandum vide Rc No.488/ G3/ 2024, dated 31 .08.2024 and conseql.rcntisl memorandum uide Rc No.1123/A1/2024, dated 05.09.2024 bg follouing the procedure of laut and consideing the facts/ objections and pass..-"
Heard Sri D.V. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and iearned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving as Commandant, 8h Battalion, TGSP, Hyderabad. Respondent No.3 issued provisional seniority list of Commandants, TGSP Battalions, uide Memo dated O5.O9.2O24, in which, the petitioner's name is shown at Seria} No.10. Subsequently, the respondents issued Memo dated 31.08.2024 ir'vitir,g objections and discrepancies- In response, the petitioner submitted his I I c PIi,,J \!'p 16a28 2025 \ - objections on 75.09.2024 to respondent Nos.2 and 3. Honever, no aclion has been taken by respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the said objections till date. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court lo dirept resp<tndent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's objections datecl 15.09.2024 while prepa-ring the final seniority list in the cadre of Commandants.
Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that since the final seniority list in the cadre of Commandants is yet to be hnalized, respondent Nos.2 and 3 will consider the objections dated 15.09.2024 and pass appropriare orders in accordance with law.
Operative part
Having re gard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the objections dated
15.09.2O25 submitted by the petitioner while hnalizing the seniority list in the cadre of Commandants and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Miscelianeous petitions pe nding, if any, shall stand closed There shall be no order as to cost S. ,TRUE COPY// l\. . At'H'*:::: / To,
The Prl Secretary, Dept of Home, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad
2. The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad 3. The Addl Director General of Police Bns, Telangana Special Police, Hyderabad
4. One CC to SRI DR D.V.RAO, Advocate. [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOIvlE, High Court for the State of Telangana' [OUT] 6. Two CD CoPies. BSK GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2210912025 ORDER WP.No.26828 of 2025 I I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \o \{
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: opinion on the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.