B. Narasimha Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 3130 Tel

Telangana High Court

B. Narasimha Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 17 March, 2025

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

                    WRIT APPEAL No.323 of 2025

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

Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri V.Siddhartha Goud, learned counsel appearing

for Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA, for

respondent No.2.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. In this intra-court appeal, the challenge is mounted to the

order dated 03.03.2025, in W.P.No.18561 of 2017, passed by a

learned Single Judge. By taking this Court to the operative portion

of the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant submits

that the learned Single Judge has reproduced the contentions of

the parties to some extent and thereafter in paragraph-(v), came to

hold that the appellant has not challenged the letter dated

24.10.2016 and in absence of challenge to the said letter,

consequential impugned letter dated 17.11.2016 cannot be

interfered with.

4. It is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant that a plain reading of the said letter dated 24.10.2016

(page No.52) leaves no room for any doubt that it was an internal

communication between two governmental authorities. The letter

is not marked and supplied to the appellant. When the appellant

was actually communicated with the letter dated 17.11.2016, he

challenged it in the writ petition. Along with a memo, for the first

time, the respondents filed the letter dated 24.10.2016 before the

Writ Court. For appellant, there was no occasion to assail the letter

dated 24.10.2016 when he filed the writ petition. However, in the

fitness of things, the appellant may be permitted to assail the letter

dated 24.10.2016 by amending the writ petition.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent

No.2 opposed the prayer but did not dispute that the letter dated

24.10.2016 is, indeed, an internal communication between two

authorities and was not marked to the appellant.

6. In this view of the matter and in the interest of justice, we

deem it proper to set aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2025

and permit the appellant to file amendment application to challenge

the letter dated 24.10.2016.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.03.2025 in

W.P.No.18561 of 2017 is set aside by giving aforesaid liberty to the

appellant.

8. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

___________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ

____________________ RENUKA YARA, J

Date: 17.03.2025 sa/Tsr