The High Court · 2025

Smt. Mumthaz,, Section Assistant, 0/0 The Tahsildar, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District. Sri A. Rajini Kumar, Girdawar-ll, 0/o The Tahsildar, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District ...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 or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the Respondents '1 and 2 herein in not initiating necessary action as against the Respondents 5 and 6 herein, pursuant to the Report submitted by Respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.C2l6140/2020, dated 28.10.2025, submitted to Respondent No.2 herein, issued basing upon the Proceedings of Respondent No.3 in Rc.No.C2l6'140 1202i.5, dated 28.10.2025 thereby cancelling Family Members Certificate issued by the 4th Respondent herein vide TSGGDT 98812923, Apprication No.FAMCO2 2401547826, dated 25.09.2024, as ilregar, arbitrary and viorative of Articre 14, : 1 and 300-4 of the constitution of rndia and consequenfly direct the Responder:s 1 and 2 herein to initiate necessary further action pursuant to the Report subrr tted by Respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.c2l614012020, dated 28.10.2025, incrudir I the authority who issued the Family Members Certificate in question, forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circ imstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondents 1 and 2 herein to initiate further action p, suant to the Report submitted by Respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.c2l6140r2o2c, dated 28-10-2025. submitted to Respondent No.2 herein, issued basing upo, the proceedings of Respondent No.3 in Rc No .c2t614otzo2s, dated 28.10.2025, pending disposar of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ANNNAMPELLI GANGADHIT t Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S and 6:__ The Court made the foltowing: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.37766 of 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 09.L2.2O25 BETWEEN: Japa Bharathi .. Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretan', Revenue Department and 5 others : ORDER: ... Respondent s This Writ Petition is liled under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the lollowing relief/s:- Ilespondent No 3 "...to is"ue a Writ or Oxler or Direction morc parttcularh' one in the natur-c of a Writ of Manclamus declarrng the Rcspondents 1 ar.td 2 herein in Ilot rnitiating necessan'action as against the Respondents 5 an<l 6 herein Pursttant to the Report submitted bY ttc.No.C21614O/2O2O, (latc(l 28.10.202.5 submitted to Respondent No.2 herein issued basing upon the Proceedings of Respondcnt No.3 rn Rc.No.C2l614012025, dated '28.1O.2025 therebl' cancellrng Famil,y Members Certificate issued by thc 4tr,Respondent lrerein vide TSGGDI 9a412923 Application No.FAMCO2240l517a26, dated 25.09.2024 as rllegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 2l arrd 300-A of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the ltespondents I and 2 herern to initiate necessary further action pursuant to the Repor t subrnitted by Respondcnt No.3 vide Rc.No.C2l6l40l2O2O, dated 28. 10.2025 including the authority who issued the Family Mcmbers Certillcate in question forthq,ith..." 2

2. Heard Mr. Annampelii Gangadhar, lear ted counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L. Ravinder, learn: I Assistzrnt Government Pleadcr for Revenue appearing ft, respondent Nos- I to 4. Peruseci the recorc[.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner woulrl submit tllat on the complaint made by the petitionr: hcrcin, a necessary cnquiry has been conducted tr-r thc olficial respondent No.3. Alter conclusion of - ru enquiry, responclent No.3 - Revenue Divisional Officcr had issued proceedings in Rc.No.C2 16140/2025. datec 28 lO.2O2S cancelling the family member certific I _t: bearing Application No.FAMC02240lS4Z826, datecl 25.0g.2024. He nould submit that for taking appropriate :r t.ion against unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6, responclt.r t No.3 had recommended the same to olficial responc ( nt No.2 in issuing the family membe r certificate, on whic I t he cnquiry rvas conducted and so as to avoid such errors :. L thc future. He u'ould further submit that no action has lte :n raken bv respondent No.2 on the unoflicial respondents

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner woulrl vehemet.rtly contend that the petitioner, being the conr: zrrnant had E'. .':.. 3 sought the cnquiry pursuant to rvhich the family member certificate has been canceled, though the family member certificate has been issued ir-r collusion,"vith the respondent Nos.S and 6, but, stiil no administrative action has been contemplated so lar, notwithstanding the recommendations made by respondent Nos.3 and 4. Since considerable time has been elapsed, and no action has been taken by the official respondents, the present u'rit petition has been filed by the petitioner. Hence, he u'ould seek to pass appropriate directions

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the case ol the petitioner is under consideration and necessary action has been taken in due course of time. Hence, he r,r'ou ld scek to pass appropriate direction.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and upon careful perusal of the material placed belore this Court, since the issue pertaining to the inaction of respondent No.2 to take administrative action agatnst respondent Nos.S and 6 in respect of issuance of family me nlber certificate bearing ap plicatio n No.lrAMCO22 +Ol547a26, rvhere it has been cer celled after thorough er-rquiry. The recommendations to reslrondent No.2 to initiatc action against respondent Nos 5 arnd 6 is pendir-rg [or consideration. Horl,cver, on pe .' rsal of tllc same, this Court is o[ the considercd opirt r r-r tirat tlrc entire ctispute pertains to the scrvice ma ef, as thc unofficial rcspondents are employees of the ( overnment Hence, this Court does not see anv reason to r r tertain this \\ rrl petr [ron

7. Accordrr-rgly, this writ petition is dismisst.r However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriat( remcdies in accordance u,ith law, before the appropria{( F orum or Colrrt. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any pendin 1, sl-rall :rlso stand closed SD/.I,. SRINIVASA REDDY ;rnrur REGTSTRAR \s;r //TRUE COPY' , SECTION OFFICER 1 . One CC to Sri Annnampelli Gangadhar, Advoca 2. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State rr Telangana, at oPt cI Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies Y+' To, TJ LS HIGH COURT DATED:0911212025 ORDER WP.No.37766 of 2025 IHE S \)t (( o) ) ) t (t 2U2i C)\ * * :\ lsparc DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS C" ^v€l6 oV'- " Y^"' ,L\ -