Telangana High Court
Lambada Hakkula Porata Samithi, ... vs Chief Secy., Govt. Of T.S. And 7 Ors. on 12 September, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.8574 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:
"...to issue a writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus seeking to declare the inaction of the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 in not taking any action upon the representations of the petitioner dated 07.01.2008 15.12.2009 04.10.2010 28.10.2013 06.11.2013 and 16.04.2015 against the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 for their illegal activities regarding to corruption took place while sanctioning the amounts for Indiramma Housing Scheme at Bhilyanaik Thanda Dubba Thanda Anthya Thanda Lail Thanda Omla Thanda Chennaipalem Thanda and other Girijan Thandas in Mattampally Mandal Nalgonda District as arbitrary illegal violation of Principles of naturaljustice and consequently direct the Respondents Nos.1 to 6 to forthwith take necessary action both criminal and departmental against the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 by appointing CBCID Officer to conduct special investigation in the corruption activities while sanctioning the amounts for Indiramma Housing Scheme during the period 2007-2015 in the interest of justice....."
2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view 2 of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. I have perused the material placed on record.
6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite having submitted written complaints dated 07.01.2008, 15.12.2009, 04.10.2010, 28.10.2013, and 06.11.2013, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.
7. The legal position governing such matters is well settled. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the remedy of directly approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides an 3 adequate and efficacious statutory framework to redress such grievances.
8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the proper recourse for an aggrieved party is to avail remedies under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C., rather than directly invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
9. In light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting intervention by this Court under Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory framework provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate. The petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should his grievance still subsist. 4
10. Accordingly, with the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 12.09.2025 mmr