Telangana High Court
WA/2032/2013 of A.Sarada Kamala Kumari, W/O A. Ramachnandra Rao, Vs The Director General of Police, on 31 December 2013
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Appeal Nos. 2030, 2031 & 2032 of 2013 DATED:31.12.2013 Writ Appeal No. 2030 of 2013 Between: Smt. G. Dhanalaxmi … Appellant And Smt. Shaheda Begum, Ranga Reddy District and others.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Writ Appeal Nos. 2030, 2031 & 2032 of 2013
DATED:31.12.2013
Writ Appeal No. 2030 of 2013Between:Smt. G. Dhanalaxmi … Appellant
And
Smt. Shaheda Begum,Ranga Reddy District and others.
….Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Writ Appeal Nos. 2030, 2031 & 2032 of 2013
Common Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
We are surprised to see the enterprising approach of theappellant-petitioner in approaching the Court without any reasonwhatsoever and for wasting the Court’s time. Looking at the prayer, itappears to us that the only objection of the appellant is to evictrespondent No.3 from the premises in question. Therefore, weappropriately quote the prayer of the appellant-writ petitioner, which is asfollows:
“To issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly onein the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of therespondent No.2 in not taking any action against theaccused in FIR No.772 of 2013, dated 18.7.2013, KPHBColony, P.S. Cyberabad and the action of the respondentNo.3 in threatening the petitioner to take her life, in not payingrent to the petitioner since November,2012 in not vacatingand delivering peaceful possession of the demised premisesi.e., plot No. 71, Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal,R.R. District, to the petitioner without following due processof law, without any right, as arbitrary, illegal, violative ofArticles 14, 300A of the Constitution of India andconsequently direct the Respondent No.2 to show causeappearing in person in not taking any action against theaccused in FIR No. 772 of 2013, dated 18.7.2013, KPHBColony,P .S., Cybrabad, even afterg etting instructions fromrespondent No.1 and pass such other orders.”
We think the learned Single Judge has given ample protection tothe appellant as far as practicable. Therefore, we do not find any reasonto entertain these appeals and the appeals are dismissed.
After this order was dictated, learned counsel for the appellantwanted to rely on an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court renderedin the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. & others,decided in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008.
It appears to us that the learned Single Judge without recordingand noting has essentially followed the aforesaid judgment. In theprocess, His Lordship has protected the appellant and also stated aboutwhat is to be done by the police officials if the appellant makesappropriate application to the police officials. Therefore, we do not wantto reiterate the same when the law is very clear on this point.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall standdismissed. No costs.
_____________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
31.12.2013
PNB