Telangana High Court
G.K.Sampath Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 16 September, 2025
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+ WRIT PETITION No. 34780 OF 2024
% 16-09-2025
# G.K. Sampath Kumar ....Petitioner
Vs.
$ The State of Telangana rep. by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad and others
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G.K. Sampath Kumar,
Party-in-person
Counsel for the Respondents : Govt. Pleader for Services-II,
appearing for respondents No.1
and 6.
Sri E. Madhan Mohan Rao,
learned Senior Counsel,
representing Sri Sujith Jaiswal,
learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
Learned Standing Counsel for
Central Government appearing
for respondents No.3,4 and 5
learned Additional Advocate
General, representing Sri P.
Sri Harsha Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel for
Singareni Collieries, appearing
for respondent No.7.
Sri Jogram Tejavat, learned
counsel for the respondent
No.8.
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2006) 11 SCC 731
2. SLP (Civil) Diary No.56230 of 2024
3. (1916) 1 K.B. 595
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION No. 34780 OF 2024
Between:
G.K. Sampath Kumar
....Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Telangana rep. by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad and others
.... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 16.09.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
4. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.34780 of 2024
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:
"...to issue "Writ of Quo Warranto" terminating the services of the respondent No.2 from the post of Director (Finance) in the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, since his selection and appointment and consequent extension is against Selection Rules and in not bearing appointment order from 05.12.2023 in and the interest of justice consequently direct for recover of payment drawn by the respondent No.2 and pass..."
2. Heard G.K. Sampath Kumar, party-in-person, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for respondents No.1 and 6, Sri E. Madhan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Sujith Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.2, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing for respondents No.3, 4 and 5, learned Additional Advocate General, representing Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries, appearing for respondent No.7 and Sri Jogram Tejavat, learned counsel for the respondent No.8.
3. The petitioner submits that he is a practicing advocate and ex-employee of Singareni Collieries Company Limited. 4 Since there are severe irregularities, misappropriation of public funds and appointments made by 2nd respondent against rule of reservation, questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. The petitioner further submits that the Singareni Collieries Company Limited is one of the biggest Coal Producing Public Sectors in entire Southern India and its administration is under the control of State and Central Government with 51:49 ratio.
5. The petitioner further submits that the 3rd respondent deputed the respondent No.2/Sri N. Balram, IRS Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Zone-Il vide office order, dated 28.11.2018 on the letter of 7th respondent, dated 31.5.2018 and 7th respondent appointed the respondent No.2 as Director (Finance) vide Office order No. CMD/PS/H/128, dated 05.12.2018 for a period of Two years from 05.12.2018. Further, the 3rd respondent extended deputation of 2nd respondent on the recommendation letter of 7th respondent, dated 14.10.2020 for the term from 05.12.2020 to 04.12.2022 vide F.No. 35017/60/2018-Ad-II, dt:02.12.2020 which is incorporated in the 7th respondent office order No: CRP/PER/C/13/2648, dated 05.12.2020. 5
6. The petitioner further submits that the 3rd respondent extended the deputation of 2nd respondent on the recommendation letter of 6th respondent vide Letter No.CMD/PS/H/98, dated 03.11.2022 for a term from 05.12.2022 to 04.12.2023 vide F.No. 35017/60/2018-Ad-II, dated 02.12.2022 incorporated in 6th respondent order No:
CRP/PER/C/13/108, Dt:05.12.2022. Likewise, the 3rd respondent extended the deputation of 2nd respondent vide F. No.35017/60/2018-Ad-II, dated 09.11.2023 for a period of one (1) year from 05.12.2023 to 04.12.2024 for (6th year) pursuant to the 7th respondent's recommendation Letter, dated 21.09.2023 to the respondent No.2 (C&CE:2010) as Director (Finance) (2nd respondent) to SCCL.
7. The petitioner further submits that the 7th respondent not issued office order even after receiving the deputation of 2nd respondent for the term 05.12.2023 to 04.12.2024 approved by the 3rd respondent till 7th respondent tenure got completed on 31.12.2023 as per G.O.Rt. No. 1704, dt:31.12.2023 issued by 1st respondent. The 7th respondent issued office orders after receiving deputation approvals from 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent in CMD/PS/H/128, dated 05.12.2018 for a period of Two years i.e. from 05.12.2018, vide office order No: 6
CRP/PER/C/13/2648, dated 05.12.2020 for Two years from 05.12.2020 to 04.12.2022 and CRP/PER/C/13/108, Dt:05.12.2022, for the term 05.12.2022 to 04.12.2023. Now, the 2nd respondent without having appointment office order from 05.12.2023 continuing illegally.
8. The petitioner further submits that the 3rd respondent is only the Chairman of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and with mala fide intension, approved deputation of 2nd respondent without following guidelines for deputation furnished Para No.8.2 the Administrative Ministry/borrowing organization may grant extension up to 6th year after obtaining orders of their Secretary (in the Central Government)/Chief Secretary (in the State Government) / equivalent officer (in respect of other cases). As per OM No:2/6/2018-Estt-(pay-II), dated 18.05.2018 amendment Para Nо. 8.2: The Secretary (Central Govt.) is the lending employee to lend the employee on the recommendation of the Chief Secretary (State Govt.) is borrowing employee to approve appointment and extend the deputation of 2nd respondent.
9. The petitioner further submits that the respondent No.3 has no authority to approve deputation or to approve the extension of deputation of respondent No.2 without the 7 approval of Secretary (Central Government) and 1st respondent (Chief Secretary of Telangana State Government) recommendation. Hence, the appointment of deputation and extension of deputation as per the 4th respondent OM. No:
No:2/6/2018-Estt-(pay-II), dated 18.05.2018 as per amendment Para No:8.2 is null and void.
10. The petitioner further submits that the 7th respondent was appointed as per the Tripartite Agreement after the 5th respondent given concurrency, the 1st respondent appointed him as C&MD of Singareni Collieries Company Limited vide G.O.Ms.No. 1467 dated 30.12.2014. Later on, the 6th respondent appointed 7th respondent as C&MD vide G.O.Rt.
No.53 dated 31.12.2014. The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.15765 of 2020 stating that the extension of appointment of 7th respondent from 01.01.2017 to 31-12-2020 is null and void.
11. The petitioner further submits that the 5th respondent on behalf of Hon'ble President, opposed the extension of 7th respondent in 99th Annual General body meeting held on 30.12.2020 and later on, the 5th respondent addressed a letter D.O.Letter No.28018/2/2001-CA, dated 08.01.2021 requesting the 1st respondent to terminate the services of 7th respondent 8 herein and send fresh proposal for appointment of C&MD post in Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Hence, the recommendation made by the 7th respondent recommending deputation at the initial term and extension of deputation after completion initial term of 2nd respondent and approval for initial term and extension of deputation after initial term by the 3rd respondent is null and void.
12. The petitioner further submits that the Selection Committee constituted for selecting Functional Directors in SCCL headed by the 1st respondent, is only competent to select and to extend the tenure of 2nd respondent, but not by the 3rd respondent who is a Chairman, of CBIC empowered to transfer/postings of internal IRS cadre that to approval of Revenue secretary with ministry of finance approval.
13. The petitioner further submits that the 2nd respondent to be selected as Director (Finance) to be selected by the Selection Committee after fulfilling the conditions laid in the Recruitment Rules for selecting functional directors. The 2nd respondent selection is against selection rules. The 2nd respondent was appointed in IRS cadre on 30.08.2010 with M.A., M.Phil., qualification as per IRS cadre Civil List 01.01.2019 not eligible 9 for Director (Finance) post in SCCL as per the Recruitment Rules.
14. The petitioner further submits that the 1st respondent deliberately gave full additional charge as C&MD of SCCL to the 2nd respondent vide G.O. Rt.No.1704, dated 31.12.2023 who is not having office order for the term 05.12.2023 to 04.12.2024 and the selection committee headed by the 1st respondent not extended the deputation for the said period, continuing illegally from 05.12.2023. As such, the 1st respondent not referred the same in G.O.Rt. No:1704, dated 31.12.2023 with a mala fide intention without sending fresh proposal from 31.12.2023 for the appointment of C&MD to the 5th respondent for the concurrency as per Tripartite Agreement. The 1st respondent without following the previous practice i.e. giving full additional charge to Sri Dinesh Kumar, the then Energy Secretary from 23.04.2012 to 09.05.2012 till fresh appointment of C&MD post was approved by the 4th respondent.
15. The petitioner further submits that tenure of 2nd respondent for one year from 05.12.2024, recommended by the 1st respondent and 6th respondent is much against the 4th respondent modified guidelines. As per OM 6/8/2023-Pers. Policy (Deputation/Re-employment) Pt. XV dated 15th March 10 2024, the deputation beyond five years cannot be extended. As the 2nd respondent completed five years of deputation from 05.12.2018 to 04.12.2023 and the recommendation of 1st and 6th respondent is illegal.
16. The petitioner further submits that the 8th respondent on receipt of G.O.Rt.No:1704 dated 31.12.2023 of the 1st respondent, deliberately with a mala fide intention addressed a letter vide No.CRP/PER/C/2024/1-a, dated 01.01.2024 to the 2nd respondent, wherein it has furnished information that the service of the 2nd respondent has been extended as a Director (Finance) tenure of deputation in SCCL up to 04.12.2024 without furnishing office order for the term 05.12.2023 to 04.12.2024. The 8th respondent misguided respondents No.1 and 6 by furnishing false information and thereby the 2nd respondent taking advantage of the same, has misappropriated huge public funds towards foreign trip i.e., America and Japan without handing over Director (Finance) charge as he is not having office order from 05.12.2023 continued illegally as C&MD from 31.12.2023. Office order for the term pertaining to the period from 05.12.2023 to 04.12.2024 was not furnished in the defence merely because not having office order for the said period.
11
17. The petitioner further submits that the respondent No.2 deliberately keeping the post of Chief Vigilance Officer under his control, misappropriating the funds and approving the CSR funds much against the Act and thereby awarding tenders on nomination basis, favoring his communal people as well as placements in the department though they are not eligible to be in the posts, and getting undue gain.
18. The petitioner further submits that he approached the respondent Nos.1 and 6 brining all the irregularities taken place in appointment and in continuing the services of 2nd respondent, by submitting representations dated 08.05.2024, 23.05.2024, 07.06.2024, 23.08.2024 and 23.09.2024, but so far no action is initiated. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:
i) Bindra Ban and Others Vs Sham Sunder and Others, dated 17th April, 1958. Rex v. Speyer, (1916)1 K.B.595.
ii) Retd. Armed F Medical Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 731
iii) State of West Bengal Vs. Anindya Sundar Das and others in Civil Appeal No.6707 of 2022.
iv) Umapathi Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar, MANDU/SC/0376/1999: (1999) 4 SCC 659 12
19. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter stating that the past conduct and present mala fide intentions of petitioner behind filing of the above writ petition disentitles him to maintain the above case. Time & again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down various litmus tests for the petitioner to pass before maintaining a Writ of Quo-Warranto before any constitutional courts.
20. It is further stated that the petitioner is an anti-
establishment person who is continuously targeting the officials of Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) like respondent No.7 by instrumentalizing the RTI Act to attain personal gratification and self goal of petitioner. The petitioner cannot camouflage his past conduct in harassing SCCL by stifling with the elasticity of locus-standi granted by the dicta of constitutional courts in its precedents. Records speak of the nefarious mindset and mischievous behaviour of Petitioner who left no stone unturned to traumatize SCCL and its employees to satisfy his personal ego and settle scores with SCCL.
21. It is further stated that the petitioner has no locus standi as he is not a public spirited person nor having any claim on the post and being third party to the post concerned, has no right to challenge appointment of this respondent seeking relief 13 of Quo Warranto as he could not point out violation of any statutory rule or regulation or rule having any statutory force by this respondent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.
22. It is further stated that the present Writ Petition has become infructuous and the principal cause canvassed in the present Writ Petition does not survive. After filing of the present writ, the petitioner himself had filed an interlocutory application with I.A.No.3 of 2025 while annexing the office order dated 27.01.2025 issued by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (High Power Committee) wherein the 2nd respondent deputation for 7th year was approved for a period of one year beyond 04.12.2024 in relaxation of the policy which is not under challenge in this Writ Petition. Thus, by virtue of the above, the present Writ has become meritless, redundant, infructuous and liable to be dismissed at threshold.
23. It is further stated that the petitioner is deliberately mis- interpreting the rules governing 2nd respondent selection which have been scrupulously followed by all the other respondents herein. The 2nd respondent is an IRS Officer and I was working 14 as Deputy Commissioner in the O/o Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. Thereafter, he was deputed to the SCCL for a period of two years from 05.12.2018 as Director(Finance) vide Office Order No.CMD/PS/H/128, dated 05.12.2018. Subsequently, his deputation was extended from time to time and the same is subsisting till today.
24. It is further stated that the petitioner is a disgruntled expelled employee of Singareni Collieries Company Limited and he was dismissed from the services of the Company by its Order dt.25.12.2018. The dismissal order was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal vide LCID No.22 of 2019 and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal vide its order has confirmed the dismissal orders. Thus bearing grudge for his termination, the petitioner has been witch-hunting SCCL by making false allegations which are bald and straight out of thin air which are outcome of deliberate and failed attempt of petitioner, to create an impression against respondents herein and cleverly brush aside wrongdoings of petitioner himself.
25. It is further stated that Quo-Warranto in favour of Writ petitioner is liable to be refused because it is an outcome of malice/ill-will. An imposter approaching this auspicious court 15 invoking public law remedy at the hands of this constitutional court has to be dealt firmly. Only a person who comes to court with a bona fide and public interest can have locus. This Hon'ble court has to be satisfied (a) the credentials of the applicant (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity & seriousness involved. Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal.
26. It is further stated that while this 2nd respondent was discharging duties as Director(Finance) of the SCCL, the Govt. of Telangana has issued the G.O.Rt.No.1704 dt:31.12.2023 by placing him as Full Additional Charge for the post of R-7 until further orders, and subsequently, he had assumed the charge in the forenoon of 01.01.2024. On 27.01.2025 the Central Government had extended his deputation for 7th year also. Thus, there is no gainsay on the part of the petitioner to allege 16 any violation or deviation of establishment norms and regulations.
27. It is further stated that the procedure narrated for extension of deputation is improper and manipulating and the petitioner had deliberately interpreted them in his favourable manner to draw unwarranted attention of this Hon'ble Court. There are numerous regulations, guidelines and circulars which establish detailed internal procedure for extension of deputation of a Civil Servant. The Central Government had religiously adhered to all such norms and his extension of deputation for 6th year was approved with the permission of the Ministry of Finance. The Petitioner cannot come to his favourable conclusion and cast aspirations on the procedure until and unless an apparent violation is demonstrated before this Hon'ble Court. Thus, the precise allegation of petitioner attributing breach of rules and regulations in extending his 6th year deputation is false and baseless.
28. It is further stated that the appointment of 2nd respondent as Full Additional In-charge to the Post of respondent No.7 was completely within the prerogative of respondent No.1 who acts upon the policy decisions of a democratically elected State Government. Such a decision to place him as an FAC to the 17 post of respondent No.7 by respondent No.1 cannot be challenged in the Court of Law.
29. It is further stated that petitioner had also challenged the extension of appointment of the Previous Chairman and Managing Director vide Writ Petition with W.P.No.15765 of 2020 and the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 12.09.2023 as infructuous. The practice of having 5 year plans and entering into Tripartite Agreements among Government of India(Gol) & Government of Telangana (GoT) & the SCCL is due for renewal since March-2022 as such it can be stated that presently no Tripartite Agreement is in force and it is purely the prerogative of State Government to appoint C&MD to SCCL and the same has been accordingly done by issuing GO.Rt.No.1704, dated 31.12.2023.
30. It is further stated that the petitioner in spite of having knowledge about Clause 10 of Selection Rules, which categorically ordains that nothing therein shall be applicable when the suitable candidate is selected for the post of Functional Director(s) from other Government Departments/Organizations. Thus, this respondent being an IRS Officer belonging to All India Services, do not face any 18 embargo to hold the necessary posts of Functional Director like Director(Finance) of SCCL.
31. It is further stated that the judicial precedent cited by the Petitioner is not applicable to the present case on hand. As mentioned supra, the onus of appointment of C&MD, SCCL completely rests upon the State Government and presently the Tripartite agreement is awaiting renewal since March 2022. Thus, it is false to allege that this respondent's deputation as Director (Finance) and subsequent appointment as FAC to the post of respondent No.7 is null & void. Moreover, this respondent is not appointed as full time Chairman of the SCCL but he has been handed over only Full Additional Charge of such post at the instance of the State Government which is neither irregular nor illegal.
32. It is further stated that this respondent's deputation as Director(Finance) to the SCCL was on regular but not on loan/bilateral arrangements. Thus, the regulation of respondent No.4 DoPT will not be applicable to him in any manner. Director(Finance) of SCCL is penultimate authority handling entire financial functions of SCCL and the Company prefers a suitable candidate from Central Govt/Armed Forces of 19 Union/All India Services (i.e., IAS, IRS, etc.,) for manning the post of Functional Directors.
33. It is further stated that the respondent No.1 having complete prerogative to appoint C&MD to SCCL, has exercised her discretion in handing over Full Additional Charge(FAC) of such post in favour of this respondent. It is false to allege that this respondent does not have office order for 6th year for the term from 05.12.2023 to 04.12.2024. The Petitioner himself had filed this respondent's extension of deputation order at Pg.55 of material papers, wherein this respondent's 6th year deputation was extended till 04.12.2024. The contention of the petitioner that full additional charge of the post of respondent No.7 should have been given to Energy Secretary is not maintainable, since it is at the discretion of respondent No.1, to post a suitable candidate for holding the charge of Public Sector Undertakings which is also true in case of SCCL.
34. It is further stated that the essential clauses of the regulations which itself permits relaxation of policy enabling the higher level officials of Central Government to invoke their discretion and extend a deputation of a Civil Servant beyond the period of 5 years. The 2nd respondent had completed 6 years of deputation in SCCL and prior to completion of 6th year, 20 the respondent No.1 had addressed a letter to respondent No.3 and in turn, it has sent the proposal for further one year to the DoP&T seeking approval of the ACC by duly following the Clauses (xvii) & (xviii) of the Office Memorandum dated 15.03.2024 and this respondent's deputation for 6th and 7th year is fully within the prescribed guidelines of DoP&T dated 15.03.2024.
35. It is further stated that the 1st respondent issued the G.O.Rt.No.1704, dated 31.12.2023 by giving Full Additional Charge for the post of the respondent No.7 as being a majority of the shares hold by Government of Telangana by duly following the procedure. Further, as per the 103 of the Articles of Association of the SCCL, for a fresh appointment of respondent No.7, the State Government requires to seek concurrence of Central Government but not for the Full Additional Charge and as such, the respondent No.1 is entitled to issue a Government Order. The averments made by the petitioner that full additional charge of the post of C&MD, SCCL was given without following due procedure is not true since the G.O.Rt.No.1704, Dated. 31.12.2023 was issued by the respondent No.1 by Order and in the Name of the Governor of Telangana.
21
36. It is further stated that as on the date of taking charge of respondent No.7's post, this respondent was having a valid extension of his deputation tenure. There is no violation on his part or on respondent No.8 in this regard. It is further submitted that during the tenure in 7th respondent Company, this respondent visited America, Japan along with other State Government Officers to attend mine expo and learning clean energy initiatives during the period from 21.09.2024 to 01.10.2024 as per the directions of the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.1249 dated 19.09.2024. The averments made by the petitioner that public funds are misappropriated during this respondent's visit is not correct since the visits to US and Japan are made at the behest of Dy. Chief Minister & Minister for Energy, Principal Secretary, Energy Department and other senior Government Officials for diversification of business operations / opportunities of the Company in alternative sources of energy.
37. It is further stated that all the allocations made in CSR are strictly in accordance with Schedule-VII of the Companies Act, 2013. The sanctions made for each financial year are audited by the Statutory Auditors of the Company and Third Party Auditors also approved the same. Further, the Chief 22 Vigilance Officer has no role in allocation of CSR funds. This respondent is a IRS Cadre Officer and he was appointed as a Director (Finance) in the 7th respondent Company as per the Rule.10 of the Functional Directors Selection Rules and is fully eligible to hold the post Director (Finance) and by virtue of Director (Finance) he can hold the post of C&MD as FAC in SCCL. The averments made by the petitioner that this respondent is not having qualification and experience to hold the post and the selection is not as per Selection Rules, is absolutely not true.
38. It is further stated that the petitioner is a dismissed employee of SCCL and he is habituated to file the cases against the Singareni Collieries Company Limited and some of the Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court and some of the cases were withdrawn by the petitioner himself. The following are the list of cases filed by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court on one pretext or the other.
Sl.No. Case No. Sl.No. Case No. 01 W.P.No.2205 of 2015 10 W.P.No.7983 of 2019 02 W.P.No.7463 of 2015 11 W.P.No.9971 of 2019 03 W.P.No.39342 of 2016 12 W.P.No.15765 of 2020 04 W.P.No.18140 of 2017 13 W.P.No.11830 of 2021 05 W.P.No.43840 of 2018 14 W.P.No.14872 of 2021 06 W.P.No.1535 of 2018 15 W.P.No.14850 of 2021 07 W.P.No.45474 of 2018 16 W.A.No.418 of 2021 08 WP(PIL) (SR) No.74507 of 2018 17 WP(PIL) No.46461 of 2021 09 W.P.No.12208 of 2024 18 W.P.No.1170 of 2019 23
39. It is further stated that earlier this Hon'ble High Court has imposed the Costs of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner herein in WP.No.14850 of 2021 vide dated: 07.07.2021. Further, the Hon'ble Court had given opportunity to the petitioner to withdraw the case. In spite of warning to the petitioner, the petitioner has argued the matter and the same was dismissed with costs. The orders in WP.No. 14850 of 2021 challenged by the petitioner by way of Writ Appeal vide No. 418 of 2021 and the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the learned Single Judge's Order. In spite of the orders of Hon'ble High Court, the Petitioner has not deposited the Costs of Rs.50,000/- to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority(TSLSA). On 19.02.2025, this Hon'ble Court has specifically directed the petitioner to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- by next date of hearing i.e, 19.03.2025 and further directed to file a Memo or I.Α. along with proof of payment of cost to Telangana State Legal Services Authority. Till today, the petitioner has not filed any such memo as per the above direction which itself renders the Writ to be discarded.
40. It is further stated that the petitioner had misused the money of Employees' Credit Society and Employees' club. Around Rs 1.21 Crores of unaccounted money has been found 24 in his bank accounts by ACB and the ACB registered FIR on 28-10-2015 for the offence U/Sec.7,9,13(2) r/wl3(1)(d) r/w Sec. 120-B IPC. Subsequently, the ACB filed charge sheet and the case is pending before the Hon'ble Special Court for SPE and ACB cases cam III Addl. District Judge, Warangal vide CC No. 18 of 2024 and the case is posted to 04.04.2025 for fixation of Trial Schedule.
41. It is further stated that even after dismissal from the respondent Company, the petitioner did not stop his corrupt activities. The petitioner's past crimes caught up with him when the Anti Corruption Bureau confirmed the involvement in medical board fraud. The Central Investigation Unit, ACB, Telangana, Hyderabad, has registered a crime for the offences Under Section 7(a) and 7A, vide FIR No.01/RCO-CIU- ACB/2019 dated: 05.02.2019 and after investigation, ACB filed charge sheet. At present the case is pending before the Special Judge for SPE and ACB was taken on file vide CC.No.154 of 2024 and the case is coming up for consideration of charges and the case is posted to 19.06.2025.
42. It is further stated that taking advantage of the pendency of the above cases, the petitioner has been black mailing the 25 SCCL to withdraw all its cases against him and flexing his muscle citing his ability to challenge the authority of C&MD in present and past instances. The petitioner is forwarding the video recorded version of court proceedings of the above writs to staff of SCCL and tried to intimidate them to agree to all his unlawful demands and settle scores with him. Thus, the above Writ Petition is devoid of merits and renders for dismissal.
43. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 filed counter alleging that writ of Quo-Warranto can be issued where appointment to a public office is not made in accordance with law. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a Quo-Warranto is limited one which can only be issued when the appointment is contrary, statutory rules. The claim of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent does not possess the requisite qualifications as per the rules governing the post of Director Finance in 7th respondent Company.
44. It is further alleged that the entire averments in the Writ Petition refers to various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of maintainability of Quo-Warranto by third parties and also reiterating the procedure or process undertaken by the State Government while appointing the 2nd respondent on 26 deputation. There is no specific grounds on the eligibility criteria for the appointment to the post of Director Finance by deputation from other Government offices. There is also no reference or interpretation of Rule-10 of the 7th respondent Company rules governing the appointment of Functional Directors, such as Director (Finance) by deputation from other departments.
45. It is further alleged that the petitioner in his entire pleadings except stating and alleging that the appointment of the 2nd respondent is contrary to rules and qualifications prescribed under the rules, has not adverted or dealt with the application of Rule-10 dealing with appointment by Deputation. The present Writ Petition is wholly misconceived, frivolous and amounts to abuse of process of law.
46. It is further alleged that Writ Petitioner is a dismissed employee of the 7th respondent Company and he has been filing several frivolous writ petitions against the Company and its officers, only to settle private scores with the Company. The petitioner so far has filed over 18 Writ Petitions against the 7th respondent Company and its officers till date before the Hon'ble High Court. The Petitioner is not an aspirant to the said post 27 nor has got any personal grievance against the appointment of 2nd respondent to the post of Director Finance.
47. It is further alleged that though the procedure prescribed for appointment to the post of Director Finance is as referred in Annexure-1, the same shall not take away the right of SCCL to take suitable candidates on deputation from other Government Departments for manning the post of Functional Director. Therefore the 7th respondent in exercise of the power to take suitable candidates notwithstanding any other Rules including without reference to the qualifications prescribed under the rules, has taken 2nd respondent on deputation from CBIC.
48. It is further alleged that in the present Writ Petition, there is no challenge to the power conferred under Rule-10 of the rules. Therefore, as long as the suitable candidate is taken on deputation in exercise of Rule-10, the same cannot be said to be in violation of any qualification prescribed under Rule-4 r/w. Annexure. The prayer in the Writ Petition only refers to selection and appointment as being contrary to selection rules and the same is wholly misconceived as the respondent No.2 is taken on deputation not by appointment under Rule-4 R/w. Annexure-1. Therefore the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as no valid grounds have been made out to invoke the 28 jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court under Writ of Quo- Warranto.
49. It is further alleged that it is also a settled law that any service disputes, Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable or Quo-Warranto in the nature of Public Litigation is also not maintainable.
50. It is further alleged that in an another Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.14850 of 2021, the Hon'ble High Court after noticing the conduct of the petitioner, has passed the following order:-
"In Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekarl, a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left with no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practiced in our country, there is no premium on the truth.
In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore stated judgment, the repeated filing of the writ petitions by the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of this Court and the same cannot be countenanced by any 29 stretch of imagination. The petitioner cannot use this Court for settling his private score with the respondent No.6 and waste the precious time of this Court. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches, and also on the ground that the earlier writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to file a Public Interest Litigation, but not to file another writ petition. Even though the petitioner has been granted a liberty to withdraw the writ petition and file a Public Interest Litigation, he has not chosen to do so. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, within a period of four weeks from today."
51. It is further alleged that the order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the writ petitioner in W.A.No.418 of 2021. The Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Appeal confirming the order of the Learned Single Judge as under:-
"In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition, as successive writ petitions in respect of the same cause of action are not maintainable. It was a writ petition filed by a dismissed employee against the Chairman only with an oblique and ulterior motive. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed...."30
52. Lastly, stated that the Writ Petitioner has not made out any grounds seeking to invoke Writ of Quo-Warranto and has no bona fides as the present Writ Petition and his previous Writ Petitions are all driven by ill-motive, vengeance and only to settle his private scores with the 7th respondent. Therefore, in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in another Writ Petition filed by him i.e., W.P.No.14850/2021 and confirmed by Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.418/2021, the present case is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
53. Learned counsel for the 7th respondent filed additional counter reiterating the contents of the counter, stating that upon enquiry made by this respondent, the Telangana State Legal Services Authority has informed vide letter dated 29.01.2025 that the petitioner has not paid the cost of Rs.50,000/- either within the time fixed or on a later date. It was also informed that any amount to be paid after the time fixed by the Court, requires a petition to be filed in the writ petition seeking extension of time. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs, on the ground of non-adherence to the orders of the Learned Single Judge duly affirmed by the Division Bench.
31
54. It is further stated that the petitioner due to personal animosity and to harass the management is roping the top officials of the Company to settle his scores and filing repetitive writ petitions without any cause of action, which is an abuse of process of law. The present writ petition is filed suppressing the previous litigation, more particularly, the writ petition in which costs of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner, which not only amounts to suppression of material facts but also amounts playing fraud on the Court apart from abusing the process of law.
55. It is further stated that the claim of the petitioner is that to terminate the service of the 2nd respondent from the post of Director (Finance) as he does not possess the requisite qualifications as per the rules governing the post of Director Finance in 7th respondent Company. The 2nd respondent was deputed w.e.f. 05.12.2018 and his deputation was extended from time to time till today and the 1st respondent had issued the G.O.Rt.1704, dated: 31.12.2023 placing the 2nd respondent as full additional charge for the post of C&MD of 7th respondent Company. The petitioner has not made out any grounds for maintaining the writ of Quo Warranto, in fact, the writ petition is frivolously made and amounts to abuse of process of law. 32
56. It is further stated that the writ petitioner was appointed in the 7th respondent Company as a Clerk on 17.12.1987. On receiving the information of blackmailing of officers and leaking of confidential information, the management transferred him to the Central Workshop. After his transfer his 'habitus' was not changed. A news item was reported in Telugu News Paper on 04.02.2012 that a complaint was lodged by BMS Trade Union Leaders to the SCCL that the writ petitioner is collecting the money from employees for their transfers and posting and huge amounts of deposits were found in his account.
57. It is further stated that a news item was reported in Eenadu Telugu News Paper on 04.02.2012, the HMS leader Sri Riyaz Ahmed filed a complaint against writ petitioner with the ACB, CBI, IT Authorities and Hon'ble Chief Justice of India urging action against his corruption. It was revealed, with evidence, that the writ petitioner had Rs.1 Crore in his bank account. A news item was reported in Eenadu Telugu News Paper on 28.06.2012 at night, the writ petitioner was caught by the police with liquor bottles red-handedly by Kothagudem I- Town PS while he is carrying alcohol boxes, during the Trade Union elections. A news item was reported in Vaartha Telugu News Paper on 19.09.2012 that the writ petitioner was also 33 involved in suicide attempt made by one of the contract workers who works in SCCL.
58. It is further stated that a news item was reported in Vaartha Telugu News Paper on 22.09.2012 that the Writ Petitioner brutally assaulted journalists Irfan and Reshwanth for fearlessly reporting the truth. Following this attack, Journalists united and lodged a complaint, leading to his arrest and remand of the Writ Petitioner. A news item was reported on June 19th (T-Media) that during the SCCL vigilance enquiry, it was proved that the he had misappropriated the C.E.R club funds. A news item was reported on September-12th (T-Media) that writ petitioner has continuous attitude of corruption and he was expelled from INTUC and cancelled the primary membership of INTUC due to his misconduct and his corrupt activities. A news item was reported in T-News on 01.12.2014 that the writ petitioner was also involved in corruption related to medical invalidation cases in Respondent Company and the Telangana Dalit Workers' Association General Secretary Sri Konkati Srinivas filed a complaint with the Lokayukta, for which, the writ petitioner threatened him over phone calls. A crime was registered against the writ petitioner under Section 34 506 IPC and Section 61A of the Indian Telecom Act at Kothagudem I-Town Police Station on 28.11 2014.
59. It is further stated that the then G.M. (Vigilance)/SCCL made a complaint to the Director General of ACB, Telangana State on 23.10.2015 for misusing the money of Employees' Credit Society and Employees' Club. Around Rs 1.21 Crores of unaccounted money has been found in the petitoner's bank accounts by ACB and the ACB registered FIR on 28-10-2015 for the offence U/Sec.7,9,13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 120-B IPC. Subsequently, the ACB filed chargesheet and the case is pending before the Special Court for SPE and ACB cases-cum- III Addl. District Judge, Warangal, vide CC No. 18 of 2024.
60. It is further stated that even after petitioner's dismissal, he did not stop his corrupt activities. His past crimes caught up with him when the Anti-Corruption Department confirmed his involvement in medical board fraud. Consequently, he was arrested on February 6, 2019, and sent to Chanchalguda Jail, Hyderabad on a complaint lodged by an ex-employee Alli Prakash Rao. The same was reported in Andhra Jyothi Newspaper dated 07.02.2019. The Central Investigation Unit, ACB, Telangana, Hyderabad has registered a crime for the offences Under Section 7(a) and 7A, vide FIR No.01/RCO-CIU- 35 ACB/2019, dated: 05.02.2019 and after investigation ACB filed charge sheet. At present the case is pending before the Special Judge for SPE and ACB was taken on file vide CC.No. 154 of 2024 and the case is coming up for consideration of charges and the case is posted to 19.06.2025.
61. It is further stated that the writ petitioner has field case before the C.G.I.T Hyderabad vide L.C.I.D No. 22/2019 and the same was Awarded by the Tribunal on 27.09.2024. The Tribunal was pleased to pass the following order:
"In view of the fore gone discussion and finding at Points No. 1 & II. I am of the considered view that the action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner Sri. G. Sampath Kumar, Sr. Asst. Superintendent vide office proceedings dated 21.03.2019 and proceedings dated:
25.12.2018 is held legal and justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. As such, the petition filed by the Petitioner deserves to be dismissed ad devoid of merits and hence the petition stands dismissed."
Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as no valid grounds have been made out to invoke the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court under Writ of Quo-Warranto.
Learned counsel for the 7th respondent relied upon the following judgments:
i) B. Srinivas Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association and others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 36
ii) Pandurang Vithal Kevene vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another in SLP (Civil) Diary No.56230 of 2024 FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
Before going into the merits of the case, this Court firstly is inclined to decide with regard to maintainability of the present Writ Petition since the learned counsel for the respondents have taken preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the same.
62. The present Writ Petition is filed to issue Writ of Quo Warranto terminating the services of the respondent No.2 from the post of Director (Finance) in the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, since his selection and appointment and consequent extension is against Selection Rules.
63. Petitioner/party-in-person submits that he is having locus standi to file the present writ of Quo Warranto as per the Apex Court judgment in the case of Bindra Ban and Others Vs Sham Sunder and Others, dated 17th April, 1958. Rex v. Speyer, (1916)1 K.B.595. The rule is well settled that any private person may apply for a quo warranto in the matter of a public office, for every person must have an interest in matters in which concern the Public Government.
37
64. The petitioner further submits that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is limited to one which can only issue if the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules and he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Retd. Armed F Medical Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC731, wherein it has been observed as follows:
"...that rules of Locus Standi are relaxed to some extent in a quo warranto proceedings. A person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto and he has to satisfy the court that the office in question is a public office and has been made in accordance law or not..."
Thus, as per the law laid down in a catena of decisions the jurisdiction of the High court to issue a writ of quo warranto is limited one, which can only be issued when a person holding the public office does not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed to be appointed to such office or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.
65. It is pertinent to mention here that at the threshold, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable as SCCL is not a public Office and it is created by a Statue, Constitution or Law. Routine service appointments in SCCL do not qualify as "public office." The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a Quo- Warranto is limited one which can only be issued when the 38 appointment is contrary, statutory rules. The Writ Petitioner is a dismissed employee of the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and he does not have legal right to challenge the appointment of respondent No.2 as Director (Finance) vide Office order No. CMD/PS/H/128, dated 5.12.2018 for a period of Two years from 05.12.2018 and later his extension from time to time.
66. As per the respondents, Rule-4 R/w Annexure, the qualifications for a regularly appointed to the post Director (Finance) is as under:
Rule-4. Job Description & Qualification:
Job Description and qualification for various Functional Directors shall be as indicated in Annexure-1. The posting of incumbents to the posts of Director (Operation) and Director (Planning & Projects) is however interchangeable.
Job Description for the post of Director (Finance) Qualifications:
The incumbent should be a graduate and qualified Chartered Accountant/Cost Accountant / Company Secretary / M.B.A. (Finance) preferably from I.I.Ms. A degree in law is desirable.
Rule-10 of the said rules reads as under:
Rule-10. Deputation:
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the SCCL shall have right to take suitable candidates on deputation from other Government Departments Organizations, for manning the posts of Functional Directors of the Company.39
67. In view of the above, though the procedure prescribed for appointment to the post of Director Finance is as referred in Annexure-1, the same shall not take away the right of SCCL to take suitable candidates on deputation from other Government Departments for manning the post of Functional Director. Therefore, the 7th respondent in exercise of the power to take suitable candidates notwithstanding any other Rules including without reference to the qualifications prescribed under the rules, has taken 2nd respondent on deputation from CBIC.
68. In the present Writ Petition, there is no challenge to the power conferred under Rule-10 of the rules. Therefore, as long as the suitable candidate is taken on deputation in exercise of Rule-10, the same cannot be said to be in violation of any qualification prescribed under Rule-4 r/w. Annexure. The prayer in the Writ Petition only refers to selection and appointment as being contrary to selection rules and the same is wholly misconceived as the respondent No.2 is taken on deputation not by appointment under Rule-4 R/w. Annexure-1. Therefore, on this count alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
40
69. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Srinivas Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association and others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 wherein it is held as under:
"43. Whether a writ of quo warranto lies to challenge an appointment made "until further orders" on the ground that it is not a regular appointment? Whether the High Court failed to follow the settled law that a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued unless there is a clear violation of law? The order appointing the appellant clearly stated that the appointment is until further orders. The terms and conditions of appointment made it clear that the appointment is temporary and is until further orders. In such a situation, the High Court, in our view, erred in law in issuing a writ of quo warranto the rights under Article 226 which can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus.
51. It is settled law by a catena of decisions that the court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of the person to be appointed so long as the person chosen possesses the prescribed qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment. This Court in R.K. Jain v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 119: 1993 SCC (L&S) 1128:
(1993) 25 ATC 464] was pleased to hold that the evaluation of the comparative merits of the candidates would not be gone into a public interest litigation and only in a proceeding initiated by an aggrieved person, may it be open to be considered. It was also held that in service jurisprudence it is settled law that it is for the aggrieved person, that is, the non-appointee to assail the legality or correctness of the 41 action and that a third party has no locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action. Further, it was declared that public law declaration would only be made at the behest of a public-spirited person coming before the court as a petitioner. Having regard to the fact that neither Respondents 1 and 2 were or could have been candidates for the post of Managing Director of the Board and the High Court could not have gone beyond the limits of quo warranto so very well delineated by a catena of decisions of this Court and applied the test which could not have been applied even in a certiorari proceedings brought before the Court by an aggrieved party who was a candidate for the post.
54. This Court in B. Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India [(2004) 3 SCC 363] held that only a person who comes to the Court with bona fides and public interest can have locus. Coming down heavily on busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, this Court at para 14 of the Report held as under: (SCC p. 373, para 14) "14. The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant: (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot 42 afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect."
70. In the instant case, there is no violation of statutory provision and, therefore, in our view, a writ of quo warranto does not lie. If there be any doubt, it has to be resolved in favour of upholding the appointment.
70. As per respondents, the Writ Petitioner has filed as many as 18 cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang Vithal Kevene vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another in SLP (Civil) Diary No.56230 of 2024 while dealing with an identical issue; where the dismissed employee was lodging frivolous writ petitions and filing cases before various forums, observed that in the interest of justice and genuine and timely claims are addressed efficiently such an scrupulous, repeated and frivolous litigations, wasting valuable court time and resources should be avoided at the initial stages, and held as under:
"22.Considering that precious time of this Court and the High Court was wasted by the petitioner, in our opinion the 43 petitioner deserves to be burdened with heavy cost, to give clear message to the unscrupulous litigants like the petitioner for not daring to play with the Judicial System. Such type of litigants are not only polluting the stream of justice but putting hurdles in its dispensation to others. The precious judicial time which the petitioner has wasted, could very well be used for taking up the cases of other litigants who are waiting for justice. In fact these types of litigants are choking the system of the court, which is resulting in delays in decision of other cases. It is also the duty of the Courts at different levels to curb such type of litigation so that more time is available for dealing with genuine litigation.
23. In the light of facts and circumstances as aforesaid, we are inclined to impose a cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) against the petitioner to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within four weeks. On failure, recovery be effected from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue."
71. Learned counsel for the respondents has also brought to the notice of this Court that the Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.14850 of 2021, this Court after noticing the conduct of the petitioner, has passed the following order:-
"In Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekarl, a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left with 44 no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practiced in our country, there is no premium on the truth.
In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore stated judgment, the repeated filing of the writ petitions by the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of this Court and the same cannot be countenanced by any stretch of imagination. The petitioner cannot use this Court for settling his private score with the respondent No.6 and waste the precious time of this Court. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches, and also on the ground that the earlier writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to file a Public Interest Litigation, but not to file another writ petition. Even though the petitioner has been granted a liberty to withdraw the writ petition and file a Public Interest Litigation, he has not chosen to do so. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, within a period of four weeks from today."
And against the said order of the learned Single Judge, it was challenged by the writ petitioner in W.A.No.418 of 2021. The Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Appeal confirming the order of the Learned Single Judge as under:-
"In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition, as successive writ petitions in respect of the same cause of 45 action are not maintainable. It was a writ petition filed by a dismissed employee against the Chairman only with an oblique and ulterior motive. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed...."
72. In view of the above, the Writ Petitioner is in the habit of filing one after the another Writ Petitions against the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and against its officials. To file for quo warranto, the following conditions must be satisfied:
i) The office must be a public office created by Statute, Constitution or Law.
ii) The office must be substantive in character (not temporary or at the pleasure of someone).
iii) The person holding the office must be alleged to be without legal authority.
73. According to the respondents, as discussed supra, the 2nd respondent is holding the office and the appointment of 2nd respondent as Full Additional In-charge to the Post of respondent No.7 was completely within the prerogative of respondent No.1 who acts upon the policy decisions of a democratically elected State Government. Such a decision to place him as an FAC to the post of respondent No.7 by respondent No.1 cannot be challenged in the Court of Law. Moreover, Clause 10 of Selection Rules, which categorically 46 ordains that nothing therein shall be applicable when the suitable candidate is selected for the post of Functional Director(s) from other Government Departments/Organizations. Thus, the 2nd respondent being an IRS Officer belonging to All India Services, do not face any embargo to hold the necessary post of Functional Director like Director(Finance) of SCCL.
74. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that this petitioner has approached this Court not on bona fide grounds, but out of personal animosity and with the sole intent to harass the management by filing repetitive Writ Petitions. Only a person who comes to the Court with a bona fide and public interest, can have locus standi. The petitioner has further suppressed material facts relating to his earlier petitions and litigations and his involvement in ACB cases. Whenever the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Court with unclean hands, all the times the Court did not accept the contentions of the petitioner in all the cases. Moreover, in some cases, this Court imposed heavy costs on the petitioner. Even then, the petitioner did not realize anything and is habituated to file such cases.
47
75. As stated supra, nearly 18 cases were filed against the respondent/s one after the other. Some cases ended in dismissal and some are yet to be decided. In some cases, the Registry has rejected the cases filed by the petitioner with some objections, but the petitioner without complying with the said objections, filing fresh cases. There is no seriousness in the cases. He is simply filing the cases for passing the time. Repeatedly filing the Writ Petitions by the petitioner, is nothing but the abuse of process of this Court. The petitioner cannot use this Court for setting his private score with the respondents, and waste the precious time of this Court. So, the petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands and did not convince this Court with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition, as such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on this score only. It is a case of dismissal with exemplary costs. The petitioner was earlier imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- by this Court and the same was not complied with. However, he complied with the same only upon the direction given by this Court in this Writ Petition. As such, this Court is inclined to impose lesser costs.
76. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) payable by the 48 petitioner to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, within a period of four weeks from today.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 16th day of September, 2025 BDR