Telangana High Court
Gillela Suvarna vs The State Of Telangana, on 22 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.818 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.Sravan Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the record.
Factual Matrix of the case
2. The background of this case involves a service dispute of the appellant/writ petitioner concerning a mutual transfer. The appellant was originally in Zone-VI (Charminar) and was allotted to Zone-VII (Jogulamba), Wanaparthy District on 08.01.2022. Further, in March 2022, the appellant and respondent No.9 applied for mutual transfer, whereby the appellant sought a transfer to Zone-VI and respondent No.9 sought a transfer to Zone-VII. The appellant submitted her undertaking on 22.06.2022, however, respondent No.9 did not submit his undertaking in time.
2
Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.416 on 11.07.2022, effecting over 100 mutual transfers, excluding the appellant and respondent No.9 on the ground that respondent No.9 had not submitted his undertaking, and accordingly their requests were deemed "withdrawn".
It was alleged by the appellant that respondent No.9 had approached a local MLA and the then Health Minister, and obtained a recommendation letter dated 26.08.2022 and an endorsement dated 27.08.2022, by which on 19.09.2022 respondent No.5 issued Memo No.8462/G/2022-1 directing the Director of Public Health to re-examine the issue of mutual transfer. The Government on 11.08.2023 has issued Memo No.8462/G/2022-2 ordering the mutual transfer.
The appellant challenged the aforesaid Memo vide I.A.No.01 of 2024 in W.P.No.1360 of 2024 arguing it was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. However, at the stage of admission on 12.01.2024, the Government Pleader has produced records showing that there was an undertaking dated 30.06.2022 from respondent No.9 on the basis of which the learned Single Judge has refused interim relief.
3
The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 12.01.2024 in I.A.No.01 of 2024 in W.P.No.1360 of 2024 filed an Appeal vide W.A.No.348 of 2024 wherein this Court upon examining the letter dated 28.12.2022 from the Director of Public Health found a discrepancy. It was stated in the said letter that respondent No.9 had not submitted an undertaking earlier and had done so only on 28.12.2022. Taking note of the same, this Court vide judgment dated 03.05.2024 in W.A.No.348 of 2004 has set aside the order dated 12.01.2024, by suspending the impugned Memo dated 11.08.2023, and further directed the learned Single Judge to hear the main writ petition i.e., W.P.No.1360 of 2024 on merits.
It is the case of the appellant that despite the order of this Court, the authorities did not reinstate the appellant to her post in Wanaparthy or pay her salary, aggrieved by which the appellant had filed a second writ petition vide W.P.No. 25087 of 2024. However, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.04.2025 has dismissed the writ petition by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant.
The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.25087 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge had preferred the present writ appeal. 4
The learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.04.2025 in W.P.No.25087 of 2024 held inter alia that the underlying writ petition is frivolous and vexatious in nature for the reason that even though a writ petition vide W.P.No.1360 of 2024 was filed by the writ petitioner seeking a relief akin to the underlying writ petition was pending, the petitioner with an ulterior motive filed the underlying writ petition under the guise of public interest to secure a favourable order; that the learned Single Judge held that it is apposite to impose costs upon the writ petitioner as his action in filing the subsequent writ petition was frivolous and vexatious; and had dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), payable to the Telangana High Court Advocates' Association, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the impugned order.
3. It is apposite to advert to the grounds on which W.P.No.25087 of 2024 was filed:
i. Challenging the respondent No.5's action in implementing orders issued under political influence, which amounts to misconduct under All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 (for short '1968 Rules') and violates Supreme Court precedents.
ii. Challenging respondent Nos.2 and 3 for wilfully ignoring a High Court judgment dated 03.05.2024, thereby acting arbitrarily, illegally, and malafidely to favour the respondent No.9.5
iii. Alleging that the respondent Nos.6 and 8 has misled the court by producing fabricated documents to deny relief and unjustly favour the respondent No.9, violating the petitioner's constitutional rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21.
iv. Seeking directions for departmental proceedings against the officers involved i.e., respondent Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 for their respective misconducts.
v. Requesting an investigation into alleged disproportionate assets and corrupt practices by respondent Nos. 6 to 9. vi. Claiming compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs for mental agony and humiliation caused by the respondents' actions.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is contrary to law and the facts of the case and the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the underlying writ petition with costs by relying on judgments not cited by the parties and without allowing him to address their applicability, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
5. It is contended that the impugned order was erroneous to characterize the writ petition as frivolous and vexatious noting that relief had already been granted in Writ Appeal vide W.A.No.348 of 2024, and the appellant was entitled to seek further relief without mala fide intent; that the learned Single Judge failed to give adequate reasons before concluding that the litigation was frivolous, rendering the dismissal unjustified. 6
6. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the reliefs sought by the writ petitioner in the impugned writ petition are distinct from the earlier proceedings, and it is the duty of authorities to comply with Court orders without awaiting contempt proceedings, and non-compliance of the orders entitle the appellant to seek appropriate relief. Further, it is contended that the Court in the impugned writ petition has overlooked the fact that respondents did not comply with the order dated 03.05.2024, nor inquired into the reasons for such non- compliance and has also failed to exercise suo motu power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
7. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
8. It is pertinent to note in regard to the appellant's primary contention that the second writ petition vide W.P. No. 25087 of 2024, was necessitated on account of the respondents' failure to comply with an earlier order is unsustainable in law, in view of the fact that undisputedly the appellant had previously instituted proceedings with similar relief which culminated in a favourable order in W.A. No. 348 of 2024. Thus, the subsequent institution of a fresh writ petition raising substantially the same cause of action, while the earlier petition was still pending for adjudication, constitutes an improper use of legal process. 7
9. It is appropriate to reproduce the relief sought in W.P.No.1360 of 2024 (previous writ petition) and W.P No. 25087 of 2024 (subsequent writ petition) to properly appreciate the issue, as such:
i. Relief sought in W.P No.1360 of 2024 "may be pleased to grant appropriate relief, more in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the memo No.8462/G12022-2 dated 11.8.2023 issued by the 1st respondent and all other consequential proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent, including the movement order, vide proceedings No.l252lE1l DM AND HO/ WNP/ 2024 dated 8.1.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, as arbitrary illegal, discriminatory, malafide and unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violating the principles of naturaljustice as well as contrary to the GO.Ms.No.21 General Administration (SPF-I) Department, dated 2.2.2022, and set aside the same and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in Zone VII and the party respondent in Zone VI, at the places where the petitioner and the party respondent were holding as on the date of issue of above memo No.8462/G 12022-2 dated 11.8.2023."
ii. Relief sought in W.P No.25087 of 2024 "To grant appropriate relief more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (i) declaring the action of the 5th respondent in entertaining and implementing the letter No.908/Kollapur/camp office/transfer dated 26.08.2022 issued by the Hon'ble M.L.A. 85-Kollapur Assembly Constituency and consequential endorsement issued by the then Hon'ble Minister for Finance and HM&FW and Endt.No.2899/Min (Fin HM & FW) dated 27.08.2022 by issuing Memo No.8462/G/2022- 1 dated 19.09.2022 by the 2nd respondent constitute misconduct under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and contrary to various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (ii) 8 declare the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in not complying with the judgment of the Hon'ble Court dated 03.05.2024 in Writ Appeal No. 348 of 2024 not only arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide, but also constitute misconduct apart from willfully and intentionally doing undue favour to the 9th respondent (iii) declare the action of the 6th and 8th respondents producing fabricated/manipulated records before the learned Single Judge on 12.01.2024 to the effect that 9th respondent has given undertaking for accepting the conditions imposed for mutual transfer on 30.06.2022 is nothing but misleading the Hon'ble Court to deny the relief to the petitioner and to do undue favour to the 9th respondent and liable for appropriate action including disciplinary action violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India (iv)and issue consequential directions (a) directing the 4th respondent to forthwith initiate departmental proceedings against the 5th respondent being the then Secretary to Government for the misconduct committed by the 5th respondent being the then Secretary to Government by issuing Memo No 8462/G/2022-1 dated 19.09.2022 at the instance of the M.L.A. Kollapur as well as the then Hon'ble Minister for Finance and Health, Medical and Family Welfare apart from issuing the general directions to all the executive authorities not to act at the instance of people's representatives and political executives contrary to law and at the cost of depriving the rights of the others and take appropriate action as per law (b) direct the 1st respondent to forthwith initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the 2nd and 3rd respondents for the misconduct committed by them by not implementing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 03.05.2024 in Writ Appeal No.348 of 2024 and issue appropriate directions to all the executive authorities to implement the orders of the Hon'ble Courts without any delay more particularly the orders relating to service matters of the government employees (c) direct the 1st respondent to forthwith initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the 6th and 8th respondents for producing fabricated/manipulated records before the learned Single Judge on 12.01.2024 to the effect that 9th respondent has given undertaking for accepting the conditions imposed for mutual transfer on 30.06.2022 and take appropriate action as per law (d) direct the 1st respondent to forthwith conduct investigation enquiry through 4th respondent against the Respondents No.6, 7, 8 and 9 with regard to 9 possession of disproportionate assets to the known source of income by adopting corrupt practices by doing undue favour to some employees at the cost of others and takeappropriate further action as per law (e) direct the respondents No.5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to pay appropriate compensation of an amount of Rs.20 lakhs for the mental agony, humiliation frustration subjected by the petitioner, which can be proportionately distributed by them in the interest of justice".
From a cursory reading of the reliefs, it can be seen that the aforesaid reliefs' sought by the appellant in both the writ petitions is directed to nullify Memo No.8462/G/2022. The other prayers seeking to include and initiate the departmental proceedings against some officials and investigation into the alleged disproportionate wealth of some of the officials has been added as a camouflage the relief sought in the subsequent writ petition obviously with the intent to make it appear different.
10. The doctrine of res judicata embodied in the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa (no one should be vexed twice for the same cause), prevents multiplicity of litigation and promotes finality. The Supreme Court in Kaushik Coop. Building Society v. N. Parvathamma 1 by reiterating the view taken in Sri Bhavanarayanaswamivari Temple v. Vadapalli Venkata Bhavanarayanacharyulu 2, observed that: 1
(2017) 13 SCC 138 2 (1970) 1 SCC 673 10 "8. ....the doctrine of res judicata is not confined to a decision in a suit but it applies to decisions in other proceedings as well.
But how far a decision which is rendered in other proceedings will bind the parties depends upon other considerations one of which is whether that decision determines substantial rights of parties and the other is whether the parties are given adequate opportunities to establish the rights pleaded by them. The doctrine of res judicata is not confined to the limits prescribed in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The underlying principle of that doctrine is that there should be finality in litigation and that a person should not be vexed twice over in respect of the same matter."
The principle of res judicata applies to the present case inasmuch as the respondents cannot be vexed twice for the same cause, more particularly when the substantive relief claimed in both the writ petitions are one and the same.
11. It is to be noted that where non-compliance with a Court order is alleged, the appropriate legal recourse lies in initiating contempt proceedings rather than filing a fresh writ petition on the same cause, as such multiplicity burdens the judicial system and undermines judicial efficiency. For that reason, we find that the learned Single Judge was justified in concluding that the appellant's second writ petition was frivolous, vexatious, and liable to be dismissed with costs.
12. The appellant's contention that the learned Single Judge violated principles of natural justice by relying on judgments not cited by the parties is without merit. It is well settled that the 11 Court is not restricted to authorities cited by the litigants, but must impartially apply the correct legal principles to the facts before it. The Court may, and often must, refer to relevant precedents not specifically argued by the parties to ensure a legally sound decision. Therefore, such reliance on independent legal research does not breach the principles of natural justice, as is sought to be portrayed by the appellant.
13. It is to be noted in respect of the appellant's contentions regarding the Government's alleged non-compliance with Court orders and the purported inaction of the Government Pleader, that the same are matters that must be pursued through established legal channels. Since non-compliance with judicial orders is a grave issue, the filing of a fresh writ petition is not the appropriate remedy, when the appellant had adequate and effective remedy available in the form of initiating contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which is specifically enacted to address and remedy the issues in respect of non-compliance with the Court orders. The learned Single Judge was under no obligation to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings.
14. Further, this Court is of the view that the imposition of costs amounting to Rs.10,000/- imposed by the learned Single 12 Judge on the appellant was both justified and necessary, and it is well within the inherent powers of the Court to safeguard against abuse of its judicial process. Thus, the filing of a frivolous and vexatious writ petition, particularly, when an adequate and more appropriate remedy exists, places an undue burden on the judicial system and compels the State to incur avoidable legal expenses. Accordingly, this Court affirms the order of the learned Single Judge imposing costs on the appellant.
15. Therefore, we find no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition as an abuse of process of the Court. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ __________________________________ G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J Date: 22.09.2025 ssp