Telangana High Court
Operation Mobilization India Trust vs Gowripaga Albert Lael on 23 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.445 of 2026
Dated: 23.04.2026
Between:
Operation Mobilization India Trust
...Appellant
and
Gowripaga Albert Lael
and 6 others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT:
Learned counsel Sri Prathamesh Kamat, representing learned counsel Sri Naren Sai.C, appears for the appellant.
Learned counsel Sri J.Sudheer, appears for respondent No.1. Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appears for respondents No.2 and 7.
Sri Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Bureau of Investigation, appears for respondent No.3. 2
Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home, appears for respondents No.4 to 6.
2. The present appeal is directed against the interim order dated 08.04.2026 passed in W.P.No.10563 of 2026.
3. The writ petition has been preferred by respondent No.1 herein with the following prayer:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing Respondent No.1, namely the Ministry of Home Affairs, to forthwith entrust investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation, including through its Anti-Corruption Branch, into violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, committed by the Respondent No.7, OM India Group of Charities and the persons exercising control and management thereof;
b) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction directing Respondent No.1 to take a reasoned and speaking decision, within a fixed time frame to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court, on the question of entrustment of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation, and to place the said decision before this Hon'ble Court;
c) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper, and necessary in the interest of justice."
4. Respondent No.1 has also filed I.A.No.1 of 2026 in the writ petition with the following prayer:
"Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No.7, OM India Group of Charities, its Chief Functionaries, Trustees, agents, representatives, or any person acting on its behalf, not to sell, alienate, transfer, lease, encumber, or otherwise create any third-party rights in respect of any movable or immovable properties, including lands, buildings, schools, educational 3 institutions, and other charitable assets under its control, pending completion of investigation and further orders of this Hon'ble Court, so as to protect the corpus and assets of the public charity pending disposal of W.P.No.10563 of 2026, on the file of the High Court."
5. The learned writ court has passed the impugned order dated 08.04.2026 in W.P.No.10563 of 2026 to the following effect:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Notice before admission.
Learned Standing Counsel representing Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India takes notice for respondent Nos.1 and 6; Sri Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI takes notice for respondent No.2 and learned Government Pleader for Home takes notice for respondent Nos.3 to 5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent No.7 through Speed Post with Acknowledgment Due and file proof of service of the same.
List on 23.04.2026.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that contrary to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dairy No.4235 of 2021 (page No.236 of the writ material papers), the respondents are taking steps for disposal of certain immovable properties situated in different locations.
In view of the same, there shall be interim direction as prayed for."
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has, at the outset, submitted that the interim order is contrary to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.4235 of 2021, dated 05.04.2024. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the order dated 05.04.2024 not restrained the appellant from disposal of the immovable properties situated in different locations. The SLP (Crl.) Diary No.4235 4 of 2021 was directed against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2021 in W.P.No.22547 of 2020 preferred by the appellant and others. It was in relation to the freezing of accounts of the appellant and others in connection with FIR No.22 of 2016 lodged by the State of Telangana under Sections 409, 420 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 37 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA). The challenge to the FIR was rejected in SLP (Crl.) No.3888 of 2017 on 12.09.2017 directing the investigation to be concluded as expeditiously as possible and action, if required, in accordance with law be initiated thereafter. Thereafter, again SLP (Crl.) Diary No.27899 of 2018 was preferred by the informant, which was declined vide order dated 17.08.2018 leaving it open for the petitioner to move the appropriate forum, including the High Court. It is pointed out that the Apex Court had, vide the order dated 05.04.2024 passed in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.4235 of 2021, made the interim order dated 07.04.2021 staying the order of attachment dated 21.11.2020 so far as salary and institutional expenses are concerned, absolute. The petitioners therein were directed to maintain proper and complete statement of accounts with regard to the institutional and salary expenses incurred from the concerned accounts frozen by order dated 21.11.2020. 5
7. In this background, it is submitted that the learned writ court passed an ex parte interim order impugned herein guided by the submission of the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) that the appellant is taking steps for disposal of certain immovable properties situated in different locations contrary to the order passed in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.4235 of 2021. The impugned order is also final in nature, though couched in an interim prayer. It is unconnected to the main relief prayed for in the writ petition.
8. We have, at the outset, doubted the maintainability of the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent jurisdiction of this court, as the subject matter and the nature of the relief sought for in the writ petition is in connection with criminal investigation. Respondent No.1 has sought a direction to entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for the violation of FCRA and the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, committed by the appellant herein. It is the same matter in which FIR No.22 of 2016 was lodged by the State against the appellant.
9. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that charge sheet has also been filed. It is further submitted that the interim order, on the face of it, does not appear to be in aid of the main relief 6 prayed for by respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that the present appeal would be maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent jurisdiction of this court. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania 1.
10. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.4 to 6.
11. Learned Government Pleader for Home relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this court in K.Bhupal v. Yarrapothu Sailaja and others (W.A.No.509 of 2025, dated 30.04.2025), wherein the Division Bench has examined the nature of interlocutory orders, against which no appeal would lie, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda 2. It is, therefore, submitted that the instant appeal is not maintainable on both counts.
1 (1981) 4 SCC 8 2 (2006) 5 SCC 399 7
12. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The writ petition seeks CBI investigation in respect of FIR No.22 of 2016 lodged by the State against the appellant under the relevant provisions of IPC and FCRA. It is also apparent that in an earlier proceedings against the attachment of accounts of the appellant by the State, the appellant had first approached this court in W.P.No.22547 of 2020 against freezing of the accounts. Since the relief was denied by the learned writ court, the appellant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.4235 of 2021. In the said case, the Apex Court vide order dated 07.04.2021 stayed the order of attachment dated 21.11.2020 in so far as salary and institutional expenses are concerned, which was made absolute on 05.04.2024.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in no way restrained the appellant from disposal of certain immovable properties. Therefore, on a wrong submission made on behalf of respondent No.1, the impugned interim order has been passed by the learned writ court, which is not in consonance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but also beyond the main relief prayed for in the writ petition.
8
15. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the background of the present lis, suffice it to say that the proceedings before the learned writ court are in relation to FIR No.22 of 2016 lodged by the State of Telangana against the appellant under Sections 409, 420 and 477A of IPC and Section 37 of FCRA, wherein respondent No.1 has sought direction for investigation by the CBI, including Anti Corruption Branch for violation of FCRA and the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It appears that the attachment of the appellant's accounts in the earlier round of litigation was also in connection with the same criminal case. The subject matter, the main relief sought by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 and the background facts noted above clearly indicate that the case falls within the realm of criminal jurisdiction. In such a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the interim order passed by the learned writ court would, in our opinion, not be amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of this court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. We are, therefore, not inclined to make further observations on the issue whether such an interim order would be in the nature of determination of a final issue against which the appeal 9 would lie in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji (supra) cited by the appellant.
16. The instant appeal is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of maintainability. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ ______________________________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J 23.04.2026 vs