Rahul Chandra, vs The Honourable High Court,
2024 Latest Caselaw 4076 Tel

Telangana High Court

Rahul Chandra, vs The Honourable High Court, on 14 October, 2024

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                           AND
 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                  WRIT PETITION No.7194 OF 2018

ORDER:

(per Hon'ble Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri Y.Pankaj, learned counsel representing Sri Rakesh Sanghi,

learned counsel appears for the petitioner and Smt.V.Uma Devi,

learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent No.2.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:-

" It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or, direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents to refer the Complaint dated 31.01.2018 lodged by the Petitioner complaining of corruption against the 5th Respondent Subordinate Judicial officer alongwith the entire material connected therewith and relevant thereto, to the Full Court consisting of all the Learned Judges of the Honourable High Court at Hyderabad or, atleast to the Disciplinary Committee comprising of the Learned Judges of the Honourable High Court at Hyderabad constituted by the Full Court to examine complaints of corruption against Subordinate Judicial Officers under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, for an independent examination of the aforesaid Complaint dated 31.01.2018 and further consideration on merits as per the relevant disciplinary Rules and be pleased to pass such further or, other Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. A plain reading of prayer clause makes it clear that no specific

order/judgment of respondent No.5 is called in question.

In the absence of finding any fault in the said order/judgment, no

consequential directions to proceed against a Judicial Officer can be

passed. Apart from this, the details of respondent No.5 shows that

in the year 2018 itself, he was 64 years of age. No disciplinary

proceedings at this stage, even otherwise, can be initiated against a

retired Judicial Officer. The prayer is vague and ambiguous. No

relief is due to the petitioner. Apart from this, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 informs that the complaint regarding the alleged

conduct of respondent No.5 was placed before the then Acting Chief

Justice, who, opined that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any

particular order of respondent No.5, he may avail the remedy of

appeal. For these cumulative reasons, we find no justification to

entertain and keep this matter on the dockets of this Court.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. No

costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand

closed.

_______________________ JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

14.10.2024 sa