Verrola Padma, vs The State Of Telangana,
2025 Latest Caselaw 39 Tel

Telangana High Court

Verrola Padma, vs The State Of Telangana, on 1 May, 2025

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

                    WRIT APPEAL No.517 of 2025

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

Sri G. Veera Babu, learned counsel for the appellants;

Ms. Mani Deepika, learned Government Pleader for Women

Development and Child Welfare, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and

7; and Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor

General of India, for respondent No. 8.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. This Writ Appeal takes exception to the order dated

27.01.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in

W.P. No. 37068 of 2024. The said order became subject matter

of review and the review was also decided by order dated

24.02.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

review Bench was informed that by a proceeding/order dated

19.02.2025, the appellants' request has been rejected, whereas

the said document No. CARM/186/24, dated 19.02.2025 shows

that it is not a rejection order. Instead, by this order, the

appellants were directed to wait for their turn. Thus, the learned

Single Judge has gone wrong in the review order, whereby she

gave liberty to challenge this order. Whereas, in the absence of

any rejection order, there is no occasion for the appellants to

challenge it. His last submission is that similar writ petitions

were pending consideration before the Writ Court and therefore,

the impugned order may be set aside and all those matters may

be directed to be heard analogously.

5. The prayer is opposed by Sri B. Narasimha Sharma,

learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for

respondent No. 8, by contending that if the order dated

19.02.2025 is not treated as 'rejection order' by appellants, it

may be observed that whatever is mentioned in that order will

hold the field and it is the choice of the appellants to challenge it

or not. So far the second contention of appellants is concerned,

it is argued that during the pendency of writ petition, no

application or prayer was made for linking the writ petition with

any other connected pending matters.

6. We have heard the parties.

7. We find substance in the argument of learned Additional

Solicitor General of India that if the appellants intended for

analogous hearing with other similar matters, they should have

apprised the writ Court at appropriate stage and not after the

final decision of the matter. So far the appellants' contention

regarding order dated 19.02.2025 aforesaid is concerned, as

agreed, it is observed that the said order will be read as such

and whatever is mentioned therein will hold the field.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Appeal is

disposed of. No costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

___________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ

____________________ RENUKA YARA, J

Date: 01.05.2025 Myk/Tsr

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

AND

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

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

Date: 01.05.2025

myk/tsr