Mr. Devendar Reddy v. State Of Telangana
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5654 of 2019 ORDER::
The petitioner, in this writ petition, assails the alleged excessive action on the part of the 3rd respondent in calling him to the Police station and insisting him to pay an amount of Rs.2.50 lacs to the 5th respondent in connection with the injuries sustained, when the 5th respondent was travelling in the tractor driven by the petitioner as being illegal and arbitrary and for issuance of appropriate directions in the interest of justice.
02.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asst. Government Pleader for Home for respondents.
03. Learned Asst. Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the respondent-Police have acted upon the complaint lodged by the wife of the 5th respondent and registered a case in Cr.No.45 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC of Wardhannapet PS on 16-03-2019. It is denied that the 3rd respondent threatened the petitioner and his family members to settle the matter by paying Rs.2.50 lacs to the 5th respondent.
04. In view of the same and recording the submission made by the learned Asst. Government Pleader for Home, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent not to interfere in civil matters in between the petitioner and the 5th respondent and pressurize the petitioner to pay the amounts to the party respondent. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Dated: 10-06-2019
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5654 of 2019 //WEB// Dated: 10-06-2019
7.
The decision of the appellate authority not adverting to any of the grounds of appeal raised by the respondent, and only reiteration of the order and reasons stated by the disciplinary authority, more particularly, as to the absence of the respondent to participate in the enquiry proceedings, not being a speaking order is in violation of principles of natural justice. Merely on the ground of absence of the respondent to participate in the enquiry, the enquiry officer cannot hold the charges proved, but the enquiry officer has to arrive at a finding based on material available. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in ALLAHABAD BANK vs. KRISHNA NARAYAN TEWARI1, the learned single Judge in exercise of his discretion chose not to remand the matter for conducting proceedings afresh as the subject matter of enquiry pertains of the year 2000 and by now it is nearly 2 decades past. Such exercise of discretion by the learned single Judge not to 1 2017 (2) SCC 308
remind the matter, at this length of time is also rational and traceable to formidable reason. In ROMA SONKAR vs. MADHYA PRADESH STATE PUBLIC SERVCIE COMMISSION,2 expressing 'serious reservation' about a Division Bench of a High Court remitting a matter to single bench for moulding relief, the Supreme Court has observed that the single Judge is not subordinate to the Division Bench. The Supreme Court at para 3 of the judgment observed thus:- "We have very serious reservations whether the Division Bench in an intra court appeal could have remitted a writ petition in the matter of moulding the relief. It is the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge, as well as the Division Bench exercised the same jurisdiction. Only to avoid inconvenience to the litigants, another tier of screening by the Division Bench is provided in terms of the power of the High Court, but that does not mean that the single Judge is subordinate to the Division Bench."
8.
The discretion exercised by the learned single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot be interfered with except in compelling circumstances 2 2018 SCC OnLine SC 956
and there is no reason to take a view than the view taken by the learned single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, the discretion exercised cannot be unfolded in intra-Court appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act. In the result, the appeal is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________________ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ ___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Dated: 30-01-2019
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.45 of 2019 //WEB//
30-01-2019