High Court · 2025

sore Arbitrator sri G.Goparakrishna Murthy, Retd. Dist. Judoe., H.No--.3_4_756/1, Filt'*o. r oz, siinani"Lriora Residency, BarkatpuralHyderabad - 50d dii.'''-' -of

7. M/s. shriram Transoort Finance_co. Ltd., D.No.2-2g /2t2A, 1st floor, Above wS. show Room, Karimnagar nojo]iditiails-osiis, n'"p. i,rlb cii'- 8. Boddulaa Shreeniwas, S/o Rajaiah, Aged Major, Business, R/o. plot No.204, Holder. Rajalaxmi Enqtus, Jagitiat Towh ancj oisi- sotijz-- Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the 'oe circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High'cJurt mav pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more particurarry in thL nature of \ /rit of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.5 in deducting the sarary of petitioner basing on impugned sarary Attachment order vide r.A. -No.ozr2ozi ...RESPONDENTS ARB No.6/JAGTL:.aO22, dated 25fiAt2022 to deduct Rs.',l5,473l- from out of the salary of the petitioner without having any power, jurisdiction, riglrt and without Award, Decree anri Jurlgment from Civil Court is illegal, arbitrary a rd violative of Articles 14, 15,2' anri 300-A of the constitution of lndia and .also violative of principles of naturz I justice and consequently to set aside the same, in the interest of justice I lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition und -.r S,:ction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed n strpport of the petition, the High Court may :e pleased to suspend the operztion of impugned Salary Attachment order vide l.A. No. 03 of 2022 in ARB No. 6, JAG TLt 2022, daled 25 I 0812022 of the 6th resporrd ent, pend ing disposal of the abcve V/rit Petition in the interest of justice lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under S,:ction 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 l.lo.5 not to deduct Rs.15,4731 from out of the salary of the petitioner, pending disposal of the above Writ petition, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Pr:titic,ner: SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAF\ Counsel for the R,)spc,ndent Nos.1 to 6: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the R,rspc,ndent No.7: SRI B. SAI VIKAS Counsel for the R,:spc,ndent No.8: -- The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER WRIT PET|T|ON No.42059 OF ZoZ2 Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitidner and learned Government pleader for Services_I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l to G and Sri B.Sai Vikas, learned counset appearing on behalf of the respondent No.7

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: ".......to issue a Writ, order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the actaon of the Respondent No.5 in deducting the salary of petitioner basing on impugned Salary Attachment Order vide LA. No.03/2022 in ARB No.6/IAGTL/2022, dated 25/08/2022 to deduct Rs.Ls,473/- from out of the salary of the petitioner without having any power, jurisdiction, right and withoui Award, Decree and Judgment from Civil Court is illegal. arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequenUy to set aside the same, in the interest of justice and pass....,, l..--l:' ; j 2

3. It ii sDecific case of the petitioner that the Re:;pondent No.5 is cedu:ting the salary of petitioner based on irnpugned Salary l,tta( hment Order vide LA. No-O3/2O22 in ARB No. 6/lAC TL,'.t-022, dated 25 / OB I 2022 to ded uct Rs, 75,47 3 / - from the sal,ary of the petitioner without having any power, jurisdiction, -ight and without Award, Decree and Judgment from Crv I C.ourt as illegal, arbitrary and violative ol Articles 14, t5,;11 , nd 300-A of the Constitution of India. A,ggrieved by the same:, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present \Vril. Petition. Th tvlslo Bench of

4. iudqmerrt Qated 2O.O4.2O21 reported in (2021 )6SCC 771 in M/_s. Ra dhakrishna n Industries Vs. State of the Aoex Co U rt in a Himachal P h w I Cor orat Vs. Resi rofTr de Marks (re rted in (1998 )8 scc 1) and further the said view had been reiterated bv a Full Ben ch-of the Aoex Court (3 Judqes) in a judqment reporte tn (2021) SCC Online SC oaqe 801 in Maqadh Suqar and Ene rqv Limited Vs. State of Bihar and Others r J d 2 o9 o2 h s R d it is served asun der:

28. (i) (iii) The principles of law which emerge are that: The DOwer under A tssue writs can be ex,erqsednot onlY for of fun en rcemen other ourpose as well; 226 of the Constitu tion to e hts bu n entertatn cti' ns Th s s I h u h a writ wh re th a e DE I ev' d n t n. o e r f th H I te m n e n enforce W nt ofa fu violation of the (c) the order or without jurisdiction; or (d) legislation is chailenged; n tal rioht Dro (b) there has been a ciples of natural justice; ngs are wholly the vires of a (iv) An alternate remedy by itsetf does not divest the High Court of its powers under Articrc 226 of the Constitution in an. appropriate case t_hough ordinarily, a writ petiiion'sniud not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by taw; (v) Wh n It h I vo rt, I DOlicv, n s h I e t 22 r a r ta a ,SC tion e of the ons r m es a tence and tscre ton: nd a o m m ThI I u h r e of I --' - .1 4 (vit) Irt JUrt CoL caSes where there are dis1 urcd questions of ecide to decline the Hig tiiction in a writ Petition. s h Court maY d f h h f e t t in !-erferedwith." J-U!-,, This C o rt oolnes that the facts of the DTesent s a n r case fa lls u nder Cla use 28(ii) the pre (referre d to and extracted above) n v

5. This court opines that the prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has a remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act' 1996'

6. Takinq into consideratron a', The aforesaid facts and circumstanccrs of the caSe, b) Ttre submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I' appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos'1 to 6 and learned 5 counsel appearing on behatf of the respondent No.7. c) The Judgments of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below a) 20 1 6 ii) (L 998)8 scc1 c 7L t o 1 On in s a e 1 The Writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. tr //TRUE COPYII SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASS TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. RAPOLU BHASKARAdvocate IOPUC] 2. One CC to SRI B. SAI VIKAS Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court for the State of Telangana. IOUTI

4. Two CD Copies KKS LS HIGH COUR'T DATED:1010312025 ORDER WP.No.42059 of 2022 .<a.- ; Sl -1$ \fE (-) f o 2\ IPI 2$25 o ,(, iC,r D :{'li (./ (.') -! {" * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOT}TS I //5 /4 /zt