M/S. Manappuram General Finance And ... vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 2762 Tel

Telangana High Court

M/S. Manappuram General Finance And ... vs The State Of Telangana on 4 March, 2025

     THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                           AND
          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

      WRIT APPEAL Nos.121, 127, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140,
     142, 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154 and 155 of 2025

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

Sri Amancharla V. Gopala Rao, learned counsel for the appellant.

Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home;

Ms. Pratusha Boppana, learned counsel representing M/s.N.Legal

Hyderabad; and Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing

Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of

India, for the respondents.

2. These writ appeals are arising out of the common order

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.37182 of 2021 and

batch, dated 17.12.2024, wherein the learned Single Judge has

examined the notices issued to the appellant/writ petitioner under

Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus,

essentially, the learned Single Judge has exercised the

adjudicatory power in relation to the criminal law.

3. The Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of

Haryana 1, opined that the writ appeal/letters patent appeal is not

maintainable against the order of the writ court when it examined

a criminal matter. The similar view was followed by the High

Court for the State of Telangana in State of Telangana v. Tushar

Vellapally 2 and the Gauhati High Court in Deba Prasad Dutta v.

State of Assam 3.

4. The writ appeals are not maintainable and this Court has

consistently taken this view in the last few days.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant on record prays for

time to examine the aforesaid judgments.

6. We have thoroughly examined those judgments and we have

taken a consistent view. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant

time for this purpose.

7. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. However, this

order will not come in the way of the appellant to avail any other

appropriate remedy, if available in law. No order as to costs.

1 (2017) 5 SCC 533 2 2023 SCC OnLine TS 334 3 2023 SCC OnLine Gau 3615: AIR 2024 Gau 30

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ

__________________________ RENUKA YARA, J 04.03.2025 sa/vs