Telangana Dhor Samaj vs. The State Of Telangana
Facts
The petitioner, Telangana Dhor Samaj, a Scheduled Caste sub-community, filed a writ petition seeking a certified copy of the report of the One-Man Commission headed by Justice (Retired) Shameem Akhtar and a certified copy of the resolution passed by the Telangana State Assembly acknowledging the commission's recommendations. The petitioner apprehended that the State might implement the commission's recommendations regarding the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes, potentially affecting the petitioner's rights. The State of Telangana, represented by its Chief Secretary, and other relevant authorities were named as respondents. The petition was filed on 10.02.2025.
Held
The Court held that a writ petition cannot be maintained on mere apprehension. Citing the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in Farooq Ahmad Bhat and others Vs. UT of J&K, which referred to the Apex Court decision in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargul N. Sangttm Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Anr, the Court stated that a writ petition requires an existing cause of action, not just a speculative fear of future harm. The petitioner's own submissions indicated the petition was based on apprehension. Since no rights were shown to be affected by non-consideration or arbitrary action, the petition was deemed not maintainable. Therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether a writ petition can be maintained solely on the basis of apprehension of future action by the State, without any existing cause of action or infringement of rights? (Question of law, turning on the principles of writ jurisdiction and maintainability). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner sought directions to furnish specific reports and resolutions, implying a need to understand the basis of potential future actions that could affect their rights. The petitioner apprehended that the State might implement recommendations from the One-Man Commission report concerning sub-classification of Scheduled Castes, citing an Apex Court judgment, thereby impacting the petitioner's rights. Revenue/State's argument: Not recorded in the judgment. The Court's decision was based on the petitioner's submissions and established legal principles.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
I [ 3166 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD (SPecial Original Juri iction) THUR AY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITIo NO: 5086 0F 2025 Between: TelanqanaDhorSamaj,(SriVeerShaivKakkaya.DhorSamai)AScheduleCaste sub-cbmmunitv Reprusenied Lv"ihl'H'ri ptjl'riiititant S/o Laii: Babu Rao' age 61 #;6if#';i'rd-{-szi o'nli'aliihi-i.rrpnia Jiyasuda, Hyderabad, relansana- 6otiooo. ...PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep by its Chief Secrelary Office a! o'rl"e.iAl;'u"u]i"r'Se"iEt,rrilt b'riiaing-,' Khairtabad, HvderabaQ' Telansana AND 1 500022. 2. The Secretary For Telangana State Legislature Office At Telangana State ' e'i."irliv"'6,.iiraing, p,liru"c"ii"ns, -Reo Hills, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad' 3 Telangana-500004. Sri Justice (Retired) Burugula Ramakrish Hydeiabad, Telangan Shameern Akther, One man Commission 9ffice At "i"-rii6" ehivin,' tlt-t-++, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar a-500063
The Principal Secretary, For Scheduled . Castes Development Department' ' alfid ;i'55;;e;;;i;:j iit i.ri rtlnl'tluJa u voe rauao rerb nsa na 500022' 5.TheNatlonalCommissionfarSchedule-CaSteS,Reoresented
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.