Saturday, 11, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

K. Giribabu vs The Presiding Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 722 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 722 Tel
Judgement Date : 5 March, 2021

Telangana High Court
K. Giribabu vs The Presiding Officer on 5 March, 2021
Bench: Hima Kohli, B.Vijaysen Reddy
Item No.33



      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                     AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


                          W.P.No.22294 of 2019

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.     The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying

inter alia for issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of

the respondent No.1 in failing to issue certified copies of the order

dated 20.07.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1371 of 2019 in D.V.C.No.10

of 2017, as illegal and arbitrary. Further, the petitioner has sought

directions to the respondent No.3/ Registrar (Vigilance), High Court

of Telangana to conduct an investigation into the matter.

2. Counter affidavit in opposition to the present petition was filed

by the respondent No.1 in November, 2019, stating inter alia that the

petitioner had himself stealthily taken away both, the original copy

application as also photocopy of the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1371

of 2019 in D.V.C.No.10 of 2017 dated 20.07.2019 and it was for this

reason that the respondent No.1 could not supply the certified copies

to him. It has further been stated that the petitioner cannot take

advantage of his own wrongful acts and level allegations against the

respondent No.1.

3. On enquiring from learned counsel for the petitioner as to the

status of the aforesaid proceedings, he states that judgment was

rendered in DVC.No.10 of 2017 on 14.08.2019. If that was the

case, it was for the petitioner to have taken such a plea in the appeal

preferred by him against the said decision. The present petition

cannot be used as a handle to blame the respondent No.1, when the

stand taken is very clear that it was the petitioner himself who had

taken away the original copy application as also photocopy of the

order in question.

4. We decline to entertain the present petition, which is

accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications, if any.

______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

05.03.2021 JSU/pln

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Media

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter