Smt. C. Esther Rani v. The State of Telangana

The President, National Council of YMCA of lndia New Delhi. Mr. E. Jayakar Daniel, Ex. Presidenl of YMCA committee, C/o Ytt/ CA Secunderabad. 4 5 6 7 ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Atticle 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 Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent no.S in not receiving Complaint and calling the member of the Adhoc Committee to the police station and threatening with-"dire consequences in connection with inauguration of YMCA building propos ed on 12tgt2o25 at the instance of respondent no.7 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to conduct enquiry and stop the -....-!_.-,j:.G' ,/ ./ proposal of inauguration of YMCA building on 121912025 t( rvoid law and order' problem lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci r the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co.] t direct the respondent nos.2 to 5 to receive the complaint fr : take immediate action on the complaint by conducting r,r proposed inauguralion of building of YMCA Secunderabac no.7 on 121912025 o( any other date, pending disposal of thr -rmstances stated in ma;, be pleased to n the petitioner and c uiry and stop the by the respond ent rbove writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T M SHANTI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: SRI R. LAXMIKAI' - H REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7: --- The Court made the following: ORDER =ry 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.27443 0F 2025 DER: This \Xrrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of india seeking the foliowing relief,/s:- "... to issue a writ order or directiol more paniculerly, one in rhe nature of Vrit of lvhn&mus, declaring the action of rhe respondent no.5 in nor receiving Complaint and calling the member of the j\dhoc Comminee to the police station and threatening with dre consequenccs in connccrit>n wirh inaugurarion of YMCA building propose d on 12/9 / 2aZ5 at .Jte rrstance of respondent no.7 is illcgal and arlruary and consequentlv direct th_e respondents to conduct enquuy and stop rhe proposal of uuugrrmtion of YMCA building on l2/9/2C25 to a",oid lao.and ordcr problern and pass such other relief or reliefs..."

2. I have heard Mr.T.lvi.Shanti Kumar, Ieamed couruel for rhe petitioner and Mr.Rlaxmikenth Reddy, Iearned fusistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondenr Nos. 1to5. ) Leamed counsel for the petitioner submim thar, the peririoner has lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer and other competent authorities, seeking initiation of legal and criminal proceedings against respondent No.Z. However, despite such complaint, no action has been taken bythe authorities. It is funher ). .-ji .r; conrcnded that, owing to the continued inactiorr on the part of respondent No.5, u'ho is police official, the pre ( nt m-it pctition has been filed for issuance of appropriate orders.

4. On the other hand, the learned fusist,L Lt (lovcmrnent Pleader for Horne submits that, in the absence ,r specific deuils and particulan rr the complaint, the concemed : rl-ice authorities found no basls to uritiate action and, therefore, n(, iteps havc been taken.

5. 1 have perused the materials on record. 6 'fhe case of the petitioner is that the police ruthorities have failed to take any action pusuant rc his compla r t. It is b), ,o* well settled that where a petitioner is aggrieved b1 the inaction of the police in registering a crime or acring upon ; complaint, the proper cou$e available is to invoke the stat rrory remedies specifically provided under the Code of Criminal I rocedure,, 1923 (G.P.C) / Bharatiya Nrg"k Suralsha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Unless such aitemative remedies are first exhauste I the invocation _?-=-.-:EFffi :-/ 3 of the extraor,Cinary jursdiction of this Crurt under Ardcle 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, save in exceptional clrcr rstances. 7 This C-ourt, ln Gouind Rqu Sami u. State of Telangana,ZOl9 SC/l Online TS 3491, u4rile relyLng upon the dicrum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakii Vasa u. State 0f U.P and Others, AIR2008 SC 90l, has categorically held that the exrraordinary remedy r.rnder Article 226 cannot be sought withour fint avaiiing the efficacious alternative remedies available under the Cr.P.C/BNSS. This legal position has further been reaffirmed and fortified by a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. .labrarnaniam u. S Janaki, AIR 2020 SC 387. 8 In light of the settled legal position, and in rhe absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting deviation, the relief sought by the petitioner is not maintainable. However, while dismissing the writ petition, this Court makes it clear that the petitioner shall be at liberry to avail such remedies as may be 4 avarlable to hrm in law, if his cause of action stil survives. There shall be no order a-s to cosrs. Miscelianeous Petitiors, pending if any, shall tand closed. Si .M.OSMAN ALI BAIG REGISTRAR ASr //TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER To, One CC to SRI T fV SHANTI KUMAR Advocate [OPL ( Two CCs to GP FOR HOI\/E ,High Court for the State r I Telangana [OUT] Two CD Copies ] 1 2 3 PVL PMK \q/ I ! I I I l l I I I i I i I : I I ! j HIGH COURT DATED:1 11091202s ORDER WP.No.27443 of 2025 ..,..-,.., ,'/- a,{. .:..::. 'itt t;i,';{g \{,.. \\ D!SMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS G "tQdk,' 2a'