Telangana High Court
WP/14209/2026 of SYSyed Hyder Raza Naqvi Vs The Union of India on 28 April 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENW EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 14209 OF 2026 Between: Syed Hyder Raza Naqvi, S/o. Syed Abrar Hussain
(
!
t 33001
]N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENW EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 14209 OF 2026
Between:
Syed Hyder Raza Naqvi, S/o. Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi, Aged about 45 years, Occ. National Convenor, Shia Civil Council for Social Justice, Rl/o. H.No. 6-1- 106212,Lakdi ka pul, Opp. Global Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Under Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, lndia.
2. The Secretary to the Govemor of State of Telangana, at Lok Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.
4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.
5. Sri Narendra Modi, Sio. Damodardas Mulchand Modi, aged about 73 years, Member of Parliament, Waranasi, Occ. Prime Minister of lndia, Prime Minister's Office, at New Delhi, lndia.
6. Sri Anurnula Revanth Reddy, S/o. Lale Anumula Narsimha Reddy, aged about 56 years, Member of Legislative Assembly, Kodangal, Occ. Chief Minister of State of Telangana, Office of Chief Ministers Office, Camp Office, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
7. Sri Mohammed Azharuddin, S/o. Mohammed Azizuddin, aged about 63 years, Occ. Minister for Minority Welfare, State of Telangani, R/o. H.No. 6_3- 25211161501, Nest Apartment, Ena Manzil Colony, Hyderabad - 500 0g2, Telangana State.
8. Sri Rahul Gandhi, S/o. Late Rajeev Gandhi, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Member of Parliament, Rae Bareri, Ryo.Bungarow No. 5, Sunehri aagh Roao, ltew oetni
- 1 10 001 , lndia.
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
!
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
;
I
I
I
I
I
!ffF'.5
9. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Office at Lakdi ka pul, Hyderabad, Telangana. State.
...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 Mandamus declaring action of the respondents No. 1 to 4 and 9 in not considering the Representations 18-12-2025, 30-12-2025,08-01-2026, 2O-O1-2026, 13-02-2026, 06- 03-2026 and 26-03-2026 respectively filed by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16, '19, 21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia, Consequently direct the respondents No. 1 to 4 and 9
to consider the Representations 18-12-2025,3O-12-2025,08-01-2026, 20-01-2026, 13-02-2026, 06-03-2026 and 26-03-2026 respectively filed by the petitioner by directing the respondents No. 5 to 8 not to interfere into the discharging the duties of the respondents No. I to 4 and 9.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 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 respondents No. 1 to 4 and I to consider the Representations 18-12-2025, 30- 12-2025, 08-01-2026, 20-01-2026, 13-02'2026, 06-03-2026 and 26-03-2026
respectively filed by the petitioner pending disposal of the main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA RAGHU MANNEPALLI
Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO'
DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: GP FOR GENERAL ADMN DEPT'
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
Counsel for the Respondent No.9: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S TO 8: - The Court made the following: OROER
^,
_\Y
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT I{YDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAIG
WRIT PETITION No.142O9 of 2026
Dated: 28.o,4.2026
Between:
Sri Syed Hyder Raza Naqvi
...Petitioner
The Union of India & others
...Respondents
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.
ORDER:
This writ Petition is rrled under Articre 226 of t.e constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of respondents Nos.l to 4 and 9 in not considering the representations submitted by the peLitioner dated 18. 12.2025, 3O.12.2O2S, 08.O1.2026, 2O.O1.2026, 13.02.2026, 06.0.3.2026 and 26.03.2026 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 16, lg, 2l and30o_A of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the said respondents to consider and dispose of the said representations. AND
2. Heard Sri Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, leamed counsel for the petitioner; Sri N. Bhuja:rga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No. l; Iearned Government pleader for General Administration Departrr \ _,-*..,.t€Dt, for respondent Nos.2 and 3; learned I I Government Pleader for Social Welfare, for respondent No.4 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent No.9
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the National Convenor of an organization working for the welfare and uptiftment of the Shia Muslim community. He submits that several representations were submitted to the respondent authorities by the petitioner seeking various developmental measures, welfare schemes, establishment of institutions, and other facilities for the benefit of the community. He submits that despite submission of multiple representations on different dates, the respondent authorities have failed to take any action or pass any orders thereon He submits that such inaction is arbitrary' unreasonable' and violative of the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the principies of natural justice'
4. When the matter is taken up for hearing' this Court observed that respondents No'5 to 8 have been arrayed in their individual capacity' The Court, therefore' advised to withdraw the Writ Petition against the aforesaid respondents as they are shown in individuat capacity and accordingly. learned counsel for the petitioner hled a memo' Recording the said memo, Lhe writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn against respondent Nos' 5 to S Thus ' the Wrtt Petition now survives for consdefairon on\Y against respondent Nos' 1 to 4 and 9 '
/=Y
5. Without going into the merits of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner is limited to non- consideration of his representations by the competent authoriries.
6. It is a settled principle of law that when a representation is made to a competent authority, such authority is required to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable period. Inaction on the part of the authorities in considering such representations would give rise to a legitimate grievance.
7. In the present case, the pelitioner has placed on record copies of representations submitted on various dates. In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the concerned respondents to consider and dispose of the said representations in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, directions: the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following Respondent Nos. I to 4 and 9 shall consider the representations submitted by the pedtioner dated t8.12.2025, 30.12.2025, 08.01.2026, 13.02.2026, 06.03.2026, and 26.03.2026, appropriate orders tiereon strictly in accordance with law;
20. o1.2026, and shall pass ll. Such exercise shall be c week from the date "r.""1.,1_'lttld within a period of one (l) erpt of a copy of this order and l l.
I
r1l It is made clear that. this Court has not expressed aly opinion on the merits of the case. Miscellaneous petitions, il any pending, shall stand closed. No costs To IITRUE COPY'/ HJ[iffi+ltt't+Rll /t:L- SECTION OFFICER ' :::,yi::!.!r:j{:'*:::: J:: ::ff: "" H "."'l: 'fffi r*}$;ltm',+*+*'ps':l;r"l.llu'x 1Wff:}Hffi#I*ll ,r lx;"fi:"':,i,1vlJ'; rr.i*o cD coPtes PSK W I
HIGH COURT DATED: 2810412026
ORDER
WP.No.14209 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS , {.\ ,, .i- ;' .) lt ' :.,71 '..., -lt- 'i-i . CC TODAY 2I APB 2tl26 ...3-rr..: ,JIA:.a\\. v/.'\ ),- I :,! i-,1 b t