Telangana High Court
G.K.Sampath Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 16 September, 2025
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+ WRIT PETITION No. 34780 OF 2024
% 16-09-2025
# G.K. Sampath Kumar ....Petitioner
Vs.
$ The State of Telangana rep. by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad and others
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G.K. Sampath Kumar,
Party-in-person
Counsel for the Respondents : Govt. Pleader for Services-II,
appearing for respondents No.1
and 6.
Sri E. Madhan Mohan Rao,
learned Senior Counsel,
representing Sri Sujith Jaiswal,
learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
Learned Standing Counsel for
Central Government appearing
for respondents No.3,4 and 5
learned Additional Advocate
General, representing Sri P.
Sri Harsha Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel for
Singareni Collieries, appearing
for respondent No.7.
Sri Jogram Tejavat, learned
counsel for the respondent
No.8.
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2006) 11 SCC 731
2. SLP (Civil) Diary No.56230 of 2024
3. (1916) 1 K.B. 595
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION No. 34780 OF 2024
Between:
G.K. Sampath Kumar
....Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Telangana rep. by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad and others
.... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 16.09.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
4. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.34780 of 2024
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:
"...to issue "Writ of Quo Warranto" terminating the
services of the respondent No.2 from the post of
Director (Finance) in the Singareni Collieries
Company Limited, since his selection and
appointment and consequent extension is against
Selection Rules and in not bearing appointment
order from 05.12.2023 in and the interest of justice
consequently direct for recover of payment drawn
by the respondent No.2 and pass..."
2. Heard G.K. Sampath Kumar, party-in-person, learned
Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for respondents
No.1 and 6, Sri E. Madhan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Sri Sujith Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent
No.2, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government,
appearing for respondents No.3, 4 and 5, learned Additional
Advocate General, representing Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries, appearing for
respondent No.7 and Sri Jogram Tejavat, learned counsel for
the respondent No.8.
3. The petitioner submits that he is a practicing advocate
and ex-employee of Singareni Collieries Company Limited.
Since there are severe irregularities, misappropriation of public
funds and appointments made by 2nd respondent against rule
of reservation, questioning the same, the present Writ Petition
is filed.
4. The petitioner further submits that the Singareni
Collieries Company Limited is one of the biggest Coal Producing
Public Sectors in entire Southern India and its administration
is under the control of State and Central Government with
51:49 ratio.
5. The petitioner further submits that the 3rd respondent
deputed the respondent No.2/Sri N. Balram, IRS Deputy
Commissioner, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs,
Mumbai Zone-Il vide office order, dated 28.11.2018 on the letter
of 7th respondent, dated 31.5.2018 and 7th respondent
appointed the respondent No.2 as Director (Finance) vide Office
order No. CMD/PS/H/128, dated 05.12.2018 for a period of
Two years from 05.12.2018. Further, the 3rd respondent
extended deputation of 2nd respondent on the recommendation
letter of 7th respondent, dated 14.10.2020 for the term from
05.12.2020 to 04.12.2022 vide F.No. 35017/60/2018-Ad-II,
dt:02.12.2020 which is incorporated in the 7th respondent office
order No: CRP/PER/C/13/2648, dated 05.12.2020.
6. The petitioner further submits that the 3rd respondent
extended the deputation of 2nd respondent on the
recommendation letter of 6th respondent vide Letter
No.CMD/PS/H/98, dated 03.11.2022 for a term from
05.12.2022 to 04.12.2023 vide F.No. 35017/60/2018-Ad-II,
dated 02.12.2022 incorporated in 6th respondent order No:
CRP/PER/C/13/108, Dt:05.12.2022. Likewise, the 3rd
respondent extended the deputation of 2nd respondent vide F.
No.35017/60/2018-Ad-II, dated 09.11.2023 for a period of one
(1) year from 05.12.2023 to 04.12.2024 for (6th year) pursuant
to the 7th respondent's recommendation Letter, dated
21.09.2023 to the respondent No.2 (C&CE:2010) as Director
(Finance) (2nd respondent) to SCCL.
7. The petitioner further submits that the 7th respondent not
issued office order even after receiving the deputation of 2nd
respondent for the term 05.12.2023 to 04.12.2024 approved by
the 3rd respondent till 7th respondent tenure got completed on
31.12.2023 as per G.O.Rt. No. 1704, dt:31.12.2023 issued by
1st respondent. The 7th respondent issued office orders after
receiving deputation approvals from 3rd respondent to the 2nd
respondent in CMD/PS/H/128, dated 05.12.2018 for a period
of Two years i.e. from 05.12.2018, vide office order No:
CRP/PER/C/13/2648, dated 05.12.2020 for Two years from
05.12.2020 to 04.12.2022 and CRP/PER/C/13/108,
Dt:05.12.2022, for the term 05.12.2022 to 04.12.2023. Now,
the 2nd respondent without having appointment office order
from 05.12.2023 continuing illegally.
8. The petitioner further submits that the 3rd respondent is
only the Chairman of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs and with mala fide intension, approved deputation of
2nd respondent without following guidelines for deputation
furnished Para No.8.2 the Administrative Ministry/borrowing
organization may grant extension up to 6th year after obtaining
orders of their Secretary (in the Central Government)/Chief
Secretary (in the State Government) / equivalent officer (in
respect of other cases). As per OM No:2/6/2018-Estt-(pay-II),
dated 18.05.2018 amendment Para Nо. 8.2: The Secretary
(Central Govt.) is the lending employee to lend the employee on
the recommendation of the Chief Secretary (State Govt.) is
borrowing employee to approve appointment and extend the
deputation of 2nd respondent.
9. The petitioner further submits that the respondent No.3
has no authority to approve deputation or to approve the
extension of deputation of respondent No.2 without the
approval of Secretary (Central Government) and 1st respondent
(Chief Secretary of Telangana State Government)
recommendation. Hence, the appointment of deputation and
extension of deputation as per the 4th respondent OM. No:
No:2/6/2018-Estt-(pay-II), dated 18.05.2018 as per
amendment Para No:8.2 is null and void.
10. The petitioner further submits that the 7th respondent
was appointed as per the Tripartite Agreement after the 5th
respondent given concurrency, the 1st respondent appointed
him as C&MD of Singareni Collieries Company Limited vide
G.O.Ms.No. 1467 dated 30.12.2014. Later on, the 6th
respondent appointed 7th respondent as C&MD vide G.O.Rt.
No.53 dated 31.12.2014. The 5th respondent filed counter
affidavit in W.P.No.15765 of 2020 stating that the extension of
appointment of 7th respondent from 01.01.2017 to 31-12-2020
is null and void.
11. The petitioner further submits that the 5th respondent on
behalf of Hon'ble President, opposed the extension of 7th
respondent in 99th Annual General body meeting held on
30.12.2020 and later on, the 5th respondent addressed a letter
D.O.Letter No.28018/2/2001-CA, dated 08.01.2021 requesting
the 1st respondent to terminate the services of 7th respondent
herein and send fresh proposal for appointment of C&MD post
in Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Hence, the
recommendation made by the 7th respondent recommending
deputation at the initial term and extension of deputation after
completion initial term of 2nd respondent and approval for initial
term and extension of deputation after initial term by the 3rd
respondent is null and void.
12. The petitioner further submits that the Selection
Committee constituted for selecting Functional Directors in
SCCL headed by the 1st respondent, is only competent to select
and to extend the tenure of 2nd respondent, but not by the 3rd
respondent who is a Chairman, of CBIC empowered to
transfer/postings of internal IRS cadre that to approval of
Revenue secretary with ministry of finance approval.
13. The petitioner further submits that the 2nd respondent to
be selected as Director (Finance) to be selected by the Selection
Committee after fulfilling the conditions laid in the Recruitment
Rules for selecting functional directors. The 2nd respondent
selection is against selection rules. The 2nd respondent was
appointed in IRS cadre on 30.08.2010 with M.A., M.Phil.,
qualification as per IRS cadre Civil List 01.01.2019 not eligible
for Director (Finance) post in SCCL as per the Recruitment
Rules.
14. The petitioner further submits that the 1st respondent
deliberately gave full additional charge as C&MD of SCCL to the
2nd respondent vide G.O. Rt.No.1704, dated 31.12.2023 who is
not having office order for the term 05.12.2023 to 04.12.2024
and the selection committee headed by the 1st respondent not
extended the deputation for the said period, continuing illegally
from 05.12.2023. As such, the 1st respondent not referred the
same in G.O.Rt. No:1704, dated 31.12.2023 with a mala fide
intention without sending fresh proposal from 31.12.2023 for
the appointment of C&MD to the 5th respondent for the
concurrency as per Tripartite Agreement. The 1st respondent
without following the previous practice i.e. giving full additional
charge to Sri Dinesh Kumar, the then Energy Secretary from
23.04.2012 to 09.05.2012 till fresh appointment of C&MD post
was approved by the 4th respondent.
15. The petitioner further submits that tenure of 2nd
respondent for one year from 05.12.2024, recommended by the
1st respondent and 6th respondent is much against the 4th
respondent modified guidelines. As per OM 6/8/2023-Pers.
Policy (Deputation/Re-employment) Pt. XV dated 15th March
2024, the deputation beyond five years cannot be extended. As
the 2nd respondent completed five years of deputation from
05.12.2018 to 04.12.2023 and the recommendation of 1st and
6th respondent is illegal.
16. The petitioner further submits that the 8th respondent on
receipt of G.O.Rt.No:1704 dated 31.12.2023 of the 1st
respondent, deliberately with a mala fide intention addressed a
letter vide No.CRP/PER/C/2024/1-a, dated 01.01.2024 to the
2nd respondent, wherein it has furnished information that the
service of the 2nd respondent has been extended as a Director
(Finance) tenure of deputation in SCCL up to 04.12.2024
without furnishing office order for the term 05.12.2023 to
04.12.2024. The 8th respondent misguided respondents No.1
and 6 by furnishing false information and thereby the 2nd
respondent taking advantage of the same, has misappropriated
huge public funds towards foreign trip i.e., America and Japan
without handing over Director (Finance) charge as he is not
having office order from 05.12.2023 continued illegally as
C&MD from 31.12.2023. Office order for the term pertaining to
the period from 05.12.2023 to 04.12.2024 was not furnished in
the defence merely because not having office order for the said
period.
17. The petitioner further submits that the respondent No.2
deliberately keeping the post of Chief Vigilance Officer under his
control, misappropriating the funds and approving the CSR
funds much against the Act and thereby awarding tenders on
nomination basis, favoring his communal people as well as
placements in the department though they are not eligible to be
in the posts, and getting undue gain.
18. The petitioner further submits that he approached the
respondent Nos.1 and 6 brining all the irregularities taken
place in appointment and in continuing the services of 2nd
respondent, by submitting representations dated 08.05.2024,
23.05.2024, 07.06.2024, 23.08.2024 and 23.09.2024, but so
far no action is initiated. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ
Petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
following judgments:
i) Bindra Ban and Others Vs Sham Sunder and Others,
dated 17th April, 1958. Rex v. Speyer, (1916)1 K.B.595.
ii) Retd. Armed F Medical Association and Ors. Vs. Union of
India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 731
iii) State of West Bengal Vs. Anindya Sundar Das and
others in Civil Appeal No.6707 of 2022.
iv) Umapathi Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar,
MANDU/SC/0376/1999: (1999) 4 SCC 659
19. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter stating
that the past conduct and present mala fide intentions of
petitioner behind filing of the above writ petition disentitles him
to maintain the above case. Time & again, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had laid down various litmus tests for the
petitioner to pass before maintaining a Writ of Quo-Warranto
before any constitutional courts.
20. It is further stated that the petitioner is an anti-
establishment person who is continuously targeting the officials
of Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) like respondent
No.7 by instrumentalizing the RTI Act to attain personal
gratification and self goal of petitioner. The petitioner cannot
camouflage his past conduct in harassing SCCL by stifling with
the elasticity of locus-standi granted by the dicta of
constitutional courts in its precedents. Records speak of the
nefarious mindset and mischievous behaviour of Petitioner who
left no stone unturned to traumatize SCCL and its employees to
satisfy his personal ego and settle scores with SCCL.
21. It is further stated that the petitioner has no locus standi
as he is not a public spirited person nor having any claim on
the post and being third party to the post concerned, has no
right to challenge appointment of this respondent seeking relief
of Quo Warranto as he could not point out violation of any
statutory rule or regulation or rule having any statutory force
by this respondent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence
the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.
22. It is further stated that the present Writ Petition has
become infructuous and the principal cause canvassed in the
present Writ Petition does not survive. After filing of the
present writ, the petitioner himself had filed an interlocutory
application with I.A.No.3 of 2025 while annexing the office order
dated 27.01.2025 issued by the Appointments Committee of the
Cabinet (High Power Committee) wherein the 2nd respondent
deputation for 7th year was approved for a period of one year
beyond 04.12.2024 in relaxation of the policy which is not
under challenge in this Writ Petition. Thus, by virtue of the
above, the present Writ has become meritless, redundant,
infructuous and liable to be dismissed at threshold.
23. It is further stated that the petitioner is deliberately mis-
interpreting the rules governing 2nd respondent selection which
have been scrupulously followed by all the other respondents
herein. The 2nd respondent is an IRS Officer and I was working
as Deputy Commissioner in the O/o Chief Commissioner of
Customs, Mumbai. Thereafter, he was deputed to the SCCL for
a period of two years from 05.12.2018 as Director(Finance) vide
Office Order No.CMD/PS/H/128, dated 05.12.2018.
Subsequently, his deputation was extended from time to time
and the same is subsisting till today.
24. It is further stated that the petitioner is a disgruntled
expelled employee of Singareni Collieries Company Limited and
he was dismissed from the services of the Company by its Order
dt.25.12.2018. The dismissal order was challenged by the
petitioner before the Hon'ble Central Government Industrial
Tribunal vide LCID No.22 of 2019 and the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal vide its order has confirmed the dismissal
orders. Thus bearing grudge for his termination, the petitioner
has been witch-hunting SCCL by making false allegations
which are bald and straight out of thin air which are outcome of
deliberate and failed attempt of petitioner, to create an
impression against respondents herein and cleverly brush aside
wrongdoings of petitioner himself.
25. It is further stated that Quo-Warranto in favour of Writ
petitioner is liable to be refused because it is an outcome of
malice/ill-will. An imposter approaching this auspicious court
invoking public law remedy at the hands of this constitutional
court has to be dealt firmly. Only a person who comes to court
with a bona fide and public interest can have locus. This
Hon'ble court has to be satisfied (a) the credentials of the
applicant (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of
information given by him; and (c) the information being not
vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity &
seriousness involved. Court has to strike a balance between
two conflicting interests (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge
in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of
others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid
mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives,
justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court
cannot afford to be liberal.
26. It is further stated that while this 2nd respondent was
discharging duties as Director(Finance) of the SCCL, the Govt.
of Telangana has issued the G.O.Rt.No.1704 dt:31.12.2023 by
placing him as Full Additional Charge for the post of R-7 until
further orders, and subsequently, he had assumed the charge
in the forenoon of 01.01.2024. On 27.01.2025 the Central
Government had extended his deputation for 7th year also.
Thus, there is no gainsay on the part of the petitioner to allege
any violation or deviation of establishment norms and
regulations.
27. It is further stated that the procedure narrated for
extension of deputation is improper and manipulating and the
petitioner had deliberately interpreted them in his favourable
manner to draw unwarranted attention of this Hon'ble Court.
There are numerous regulations, guidelines and circulars which
establish detailed internal procedure for extension of
deputation of a Civil Servant. The Central Government had
religiously adhered to all such norms and his extension of
deputation for 6th year was approved with the permission of the
Ministry of Finance. The Petitioner cannot come to his
favourable conclusion and cast aspirations on the procedure
until and unless an apparent violation is demonstrated before
this Hon'ble Court. Thus, the precise allegation of petitioner
attributing breach of rules and regulations in extending his 6th
year deputation is false and baseless.
28. It is further stated that the appointment of 2nd respondent
as Full Additional In-charge to the Post of respondent No.7 was
completely within the prerogative of respondent No.1 who acts
upon the policy decisions of a democratically elected State
Government. Such a decision to place him as an FAC to the
post of respondent No.7 by respondent No.1 cannot be
challenged in the Court of Law.
29. It is further stated that petitioner had also challenged the
extension of appointment of the Previous Chairman and
Managing Director vide Writ Petition with W.P.No.15765 of
2020 and the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble High
Court on 12.09.2023 as infructuous. The practice of having 5
year plans and entering into Tripartite Agreements among
Government of India(Gol) & Government of Telangana (GoT) &
the SCCL is due for renewal since March-2022 as such it can
be stated that presently no Tripartite Agreement is in force and
it is purely the prerogative of State Government to appoint
C&MD to SCCL and the same has been accordingly done by
issuing GO.Rt.No.1704, dated 31.12.2023.
30. It is further stated that the petitioner in spite of having
knowledge about Clause 10 of Selection Rules, which
categorically ordains that nothing therein shall be applicable
when the suitable candidate is selected for the post of
Functional Director(s) from other Government
Departments/Organizations. Thus, this respondent being an
IRS Officer belonging to All India Services, do not face any
embargo to hold the necessary posts of Functional Director like
Director(Finance) of SCCL.
31. It is further stated that the judicial precedent cited by the
Petitioner is not applicable to the present case on hand. As
mentioned supra, the onus of appointment of C&MD, SCCL
completely rests upon the State Government and presently the
Tripartite agreement is awaiting renewal since March 2022.
Thus, it is false to allege that this respondent's deputation as
Director (Finance) and subsequent appointment as FAC to the
post of respondent No.7 is null & void. Moreover, this
respondent is not appointed as full time Chairman of the SCCL
but he has been handed over only Full Additional Charge of
such post at the instance of the State Government which is
neither irregular nor illegal.
32. It is further stated that this respondent's deputation as
Director(Finance) to the SCCL was on regular but not on
loan/bilateral arrangements. Thus, the regulation of
respondent No.4 DoPT will not be applicable to him in any
manner. Director(Finance) of SCCL is penultimate authority
handling entire financial functions of SCCL and the Company
prefers a suitable candidate from Central Govt/Armed Forces of
Union/All India Services (i.e., IAS, IRS, etc.,) for manning the
post of Functional Directors.
33. It is further stated that the respondent No.1 having
complete prerogative to appoint C&MD to SCCL, has exercised
her discretion in handing over Full Additional Charge(FAC) of
such post in favour of this respondent. It is false to allege that
this respondent does not have office order for 6th year for the
term from 05.12.2023 to 04.12.2024. The Petitioner himself
had filed this respondent's extension of deputation order at
Pg.55 of material papers, wherein this respondent's 6th year
deputation was extended till 04.12.2024. The contention of the
petitioner that full additional charge of the post of respondent
No.7 should have been given to Energy Secretary is not
maintainable, since it is at the discretion of respondent No.1, to
post a suitable candidate for holding the charge of Public Sector
Undertakings which is also true in case of SCCL.
34. It is further stated that the essential clauses of the
regulations which itself permits relaxation of policy enabling the
higher level officials of Central Government to invoke their
discretion and extend a deputation of a Civil Servant beyond
the period of 5 years. The 2nd respondent had completed 6
years of deputation in SCCL and prior to completion of 6th year,
the respondent No.1 had addressed a letter to respondent No.3
and in turn, it has sent the proposal for further one year to the
DoP&T seeking approval of the ACC by duly following the
Clauses (xvii) & (xviii) of the Office Memorandum dated
15.03.2024 and this respondent's deputation for 6th and 7th
year is fully within the prescribed guidelines of DoP&T dated
15.03.2024.
35. It is further stated that the 1st respondent issued the
G.O.Rt.No.1704, dated 31.12.2023 by giving Full Additional
Charge for the post of the respondent No.7 as being a majority
of the shares hold by Government of Telangana by duly
following the procedure. Further, as per the 103 of the Articles
of Association of the SCCL, for a fresh appointment of
respondent No.7, the State Government requires to seek
concurrence of Central Government but not for the Full
Additional Charge and as such, the respondent No.1 is entitled
to issue a Government Order. The averments made by the
petitioner that full additional charge of the post of C&MD, SCCL
was given without following due procedure is not true since the
G.O.Rt.No.1704, Dated. 31.12.2023 was issued by the
respondent No.1 by Order and in the Name of the Governor of
Telangana.
36. It is further stated that as on the date of taking charge of
respondent No.7's post, this respondent was having a valid
extension of his deputation tenure. There is no violation on his
part or on respondent No.8 in this regard. It is further
submitted that during the tenure in 7th respondent Company,
this respondent visited America, Japan along with other State
Government Officers to attend mine expo and learning clean
energy initiatives during the period from 21.09.2024 to
01.10.2024 as per the directions of the 1st respondent vide
G.O.Rt.No.1249 dated 19.09.2024. The averments made by the
petitioner that public funds are misappropriated during this
respondent's visit is not correct since the visits to US and
Japan are made at the behest of Dy. Chief Minister & Minister
for Energy, Principal Secretary, Energy Department and other
senior Government Officials for diversification of business
operations / opportunities of the Company in alternative
sources of energy.
37. It is further stated that all the allocations made in CSR
are strictly in accordance with Schedule-VII of the Companies
Act, 2013. The sanctions made for each financial year are
audited by the Statutory Auditors of the Company and Third
Party Auditors also approved the same. Further, the Chief
Vigilance Officer has no role in allocation of CSR funds. This
respondent is a IRS Cadre Officer and he was appointed as a
Director (Finance) in the 7th respondent Company as per the
Rule.10 of the Functional Directors Selection Rules and is fully
eligible to hold the post Director (Finance) and by virtue of
Director (Finance) he can hold the post of C&MD as FAC in
SCCL. The averments made by the petitioner that this
respondent is not having qualification and experience to hold
the post and the selection is not as per Selection Rules, is
absolutely not true.
38. It is further stated that the petitioner is a dismissed
employee of SCCL and he is habituated to file the cases against
the Singareni Collieries Company Limited and some of the Writ
Petitions were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court and some of
the cases were withdrawn by the petitioner himself. The
following are the list of cases filed by the petitioner before this
Hon'ble Court on one pretext or the other.
Sl.No. Case No. Sl.No. Case No.
03 W.P.No.39342 of 2016 12 W.P.No.15765 of 2020
04 W.P.No.18140 of 2017 13 W.P.No.11830 of 2021
05 W.P.No.43840 of 2018 14 W.P.No.14872 of 2021
08 WP(PIL) (SR) No.74507 of 2018 17 WP(PIL) No.46461 of 2021
39. It is further stated that earlier this Hon'ble High Court
has imposed the Costs of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner herein
in WP.No.14850 of 2021 vide dated: 07.07.2021. Further, the
Hon'ble Court had given opportunity to the petitioner to
withdraw the case. In spite of warning to the petitioner, the
petitioner has argued the matter and the same was dismissed
with costs. The orders in WP.No. 14850 of 2021 challenged by
the petitioner by way of Writ Appeal vide No. 418 of 2021 and
the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the
learned Single Judge's Order. In spite of the orders of Hon'ble
High Court, the Petitioner has not deposited the Costs of
Rs.50,000/- to the Telangana State Legal Services
Authority(TSLSA). On 19.02.2025, this Hon'ble Court has
specifically directed the petitioner to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- by
next date of hearing i.e, 19.03.2025 and further directed to file
a Memo or I.Α. along with proof of payment of cost to Telangana
State Legal Services Authority. Till today, the petitioner has not
filed any such memo as per the above direction which itself
renders the Writ to be discarded.
40. It is further stated that the petitioner had misused the
money of Employees' Credit Society and Employees' club.
Around Rs 1.21 Crores of unaccounted money has been found
in his bank accounts by ACB and the ACB registered FIR on
28-10-2015 for the offence U/Sec.7,9,13(2) r/wl3(1)(d) r/w Sec.
120-B IPC. Subsequently, the ACB filed charge sheet and the
case is pending before the Hon'ble Special Court for SPE and
ACB cases cam III Addl. District Judge, Warangal vide CC No.
18 of 2024 and the case is posted to 04.04.2025 for fixation of
Trial Schedule.
41. It is further stated that even after dismissal from the
respondent Company, the petitioner did not stop his corrupt
activities. The petitioner's past crimes caught up with him when
the Anti Corruption Bureau confirmed the involvement in
medical board fraud. The Central Investigation Unit, ACB,
Telangana, Hyderabad, has registered a crime for the offences
Under Section 7(a) and 7A, vide FIR No.01/RCO-CIU-
ACB/2019 dated: 05.02.2019 and after investigation, ACB filed
charge sheet. At present the case is pending before the Special
Judge for SPE and ACB was taken on file vide CC.No.154 of
2024 and the case is coming up for consideration of charges
and the case is posted to 19.06.2025.
42. It is further stated that taking advantage of the pendency
of the above cases, the petitioner has been black mailing the
SCCL to withdraw all its cases against him and flexing his
muscle citing his ability to challenge the authority of C&MD in
present and past instances. The petitioner is forwarding the
video recorded version of court proceedings of the above writs to
staff of SCCL and tried to intimidate them to agree to all his
unlawful demands and settle scores with him. Thus, the above
Writ Petition is devoid of merits and renders for dismissal.
43. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 filed counter alleging
that writ of Quo-Warranto can be issued where appointment to
a public office is not made in accordance with law. The
jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a Quo-Warranto is
limited one which can only be issued when the appointment is
contrary, statutory rules. The claim of the petitioner is that the
2nd respondent does not possess the requisite qualifications as
per the rules governing the post of Director Finance in 7th
respondent Company.
44. It is further alleged that the entire averments in the Writ
Petition refers to various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court
on the issue of maintainability of Quo-Warranto by third parties
and also reiterating the procedure or process undertaken by the
State Government while appointing the 2nd respondent on
deputation. There is no specific grounds on the eligibility
criteria for the appointment to the post of Director Finance by
deputation from other Government offices. There is also no
reference or interpretation of Rule-10 of the 7th respondent
Company rules governing the appointment of Functional
Directors, such as Director (Finance) by deputation from other
departments.
45. It is further alleged that the petitioner in his entire
pleadings except stating and alleging that the appointment of
the 2nd respondent is contrary to rules and qualifications
prescribed under the rules, has not adverted or dealt with the
application of Rule-10 dealing with appointment by Deputation.
The present Writ Petition is wholly misconceived, frivolous and
amounts to abuse of process of law.
46. It is further alleged that Writ Petitioner is a dismissed
employee of the 7th respondent Company and he has been filing
several frivolous writ petitions against the Company and its
officers, only to settle private scores with the Company. The
petitioner so far has filed over 18 Writ Petitions against the 7th
respondent Company and its officers till date before the Hon'ble
High Court. The Petitioner is not an aspirant to the said post
nor has got any personal grievance against the appointment of
2nd respondent to the post of Director Finance.
47. It is further alleged that though the procedure prescribed
for appointment to the post of Director Finance is as referred in
Annexure-1, the same shall not take away the right of SCCL to
take suitable candidates on deputation from other Government
Departments for manning the post of Functional Director.
Therefore the 7th respondent in exercise of the power to take
suitable candidates notwithstanding any other Rules including
without reference to the qualifications prescribed under the
rules, has taken 2nd respondent on deputation from CBIC.
48. It is further alleged that in the present Writ Petition, there
is no challenge to the power conferred under Rule-10 of the
rules. Therefore, as long as the suitable candidate is taken on
deputation in exercise of Rule-10, the same cannot be said to
be in violation of any qualification prescribed under Rule-4 r/w.
Annexure. The prayer in the Writ Petition only refers to
selection and appointment as being contrary to selection rules
and the same is wholly misconceived as the respondent No.2 is
taken on deputation not by appointment under Rule-4 R/w.
Annexure-1. Therefore the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed
as no valid grounds have been made out to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court under Writ of Quo-
Warranto.
49. It is further alleged that it is also a settled law that any
service disputes, Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable
or Quo-Warranto in the nature of Public Litigation is also not
maintainable.
50. It is further alleged that in an another Writ Petition filed
by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.14850 of 2021, the Hon'ble
High Court after noticing the conduct of the petitioner, has
passed the following order:-
"In Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekarl, a
Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
as under:
"13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a
litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial
process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not
dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the
truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left with
no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should
not venture along the same path in the hope or on a
misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs
are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that
in litigation, as in the law which is practiced in our country,
there is no premium on the truth.
In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the afore stated judgment, the repeated filing of the writ
petitions by the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process
of this Court and the same cannot be countenanced by any
stretch of imagination. The petitioner cannot use this Court
for settling his private score with the respondent No.6 and
waste the precious time of this Court. Thus, the writ petition
is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches, and also
on the ground that the earlier writ petition was dismissed
as withdrawn granting liberty to file a Public Interest
Litigation, but not to file another writ petition. Even though
the petitioner has been granted a liberty to withdraw the
writ petition and file a Public Interest Litigation, he has not
chosen to do so. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition
is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the Telangana
State Legal Services Authority, within a period of four
weeks from today."
51. It is further alleged that the order of the learned Single
Judge was challenged by the writ petitioner in W.A.No.418 of
2021. The Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court was
pleased to dismiss the Writ Appeal confirming the order of the
Learned Single Judge as under:-
"In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single
Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition, as
successive writ petitions in respect of the same cause of
action are not maintainable. It was a writ petition filed by a
dismissed employee against the Chairman only with an
oblique and ulterior motive. This Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed...."
52. Lastly, stated that the Writ Petitioner has not made out
any grounds seeking to invoke Writ of Quo-Warranto and has
no bona fides as the present Writ Petition and his previous Writ
Petitions are all driven by ill-motive, vengeance and only to
settle his private scores with the 7th respondent. Therefore, in
light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in another Writ
Petition filed by him i.e., W.P.No.14850/2021 and confirmed by
Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.418/2021, the
present case is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
53. Learned counsel for the 7th respondent filed additional
counter reiterating the contents of the counter, stating that
upon enquiry made by this respondent, the Telangana State
Legal Services Authority has informed vide letter dated
29.01.2025 that the petitioner has not paid the cost of
Rs.50,000/- either within the time fixed or on a later date. It
was also informed that any amount to be paid after the time
fixed by the Court, requires a petition to be filed in the writ
petition seeking extension of time. In view of the above, the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs, on the
ground of non-adherence to the orders of the Learned Single
Judge duly affirmed by the Division Bench.
54. It is further stated that the petitioner due to personal
animosity and to harass the management is roping the top
officials of the Company to settle his scores and filing repetitive
writ petitions without any cause of action, which is an abuse of
process of law. The present writ petition is filed suppressing
the previous litigation, more particularly, the writ petition in
which costs of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner,
which not only amounts to suppression of material facts but
also amounts playing fraud on the Court apart from abusing
the process of law.
55. It is further stated that the claim of the petitioner is that
to terminate the service of the 2nd respondent from the post of
Director (Finance) as he does not possess the requisite
qualifications as per the rules governing the post of Director
Finance in 7th respondent Company. The 2nd respondent was
deputed w.e.f. 05.12.2018 and his deputation was extended
from time to time till today and the 1st respondent had issued
the G.O.Rt.1704, dated: 31.12.2023 placing the 2nd respondent
as full additional charge for the post of C&MD of 7th respondent
Company. The petitioner has not made out any grounds for
maintaining the writ of Quo Warranto, in fact, the writ petition
is frivolously made and amounts to abuse of process of law.
56. It is further stated that the writ petitioner was appointed
in the 7th respondent Company as a Clerk on 17.12.1987. On
receiving the information of blackmailing of officers and leaking
of confidential information, the management transferred him to
the Central Workshop. After his transfer his 'habitus' was not
changed. A news item was reported in Telugu News Paper on
04.02.2012 that a complaint was lodged by BMS Trade Union
Leaders to the SCCL that the writ petitioner is collecting the
money from employees for their transfers and posting and huge
amounts of deposits were found in his account.
57. It is further stated that a news item was reported in
Eenadu Telugu News Paper on 04.02.2012, the HMS leader Sri
Riyaz Ahmed filed a complaint against writ petitioner with the
ACB, CBI, IT Authorities and Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
urging action against his corruption. It was revealed, with
evidence, that the writ petitioner had Rs.1 Crore in his bank
account. A news item was reported in Eenadu Telugu News
Paper on 28.06.2012 at night, the writ petitioner was caught by
the police with liquor bottles red-handedly by Kothagudem I-
Town PS while he is carrying alcohol boxes, during the Trade
Union elections. A news item was reported in Vaartha Telugu
News Paper on 19.09.2012 that the writ petitioner was also
involved in suicide attempt made by one of the contract workers
who works in SCCL.
58. It is further stated that a news item was reported in
Vaartha Telugu News Paper on 22.09.2012 that the Writ
Petitioner brutally assaulted journalists Irfan and Reshwanth
for fearlessly reporting the truth. Following this attack,
Journalists united and lodged a complaint, leading to his arrest
and remand of the Writ Petitioner. A news item was reported
on June 19th (T-Media) that during the SCCL vigilance enquiry,
it was proved that the he had misappropriated the C.E.R club
funds. A news item was reported on September-12th (T-Media)
that writ petitioner has continuous attitude of corruption and
he was expelled from INTUC and cancelled the primary
membership of INTUC due to his misconduct and his corrupt
activities. A news item was reported in T-News on 01.12.2014
that the writ petitioner was also involved in corruption related
to medical invalidation cases in Respondent Company and the
Telangana Dalit Workers' Association General Secretary Sri
Konkati Srinivas filed a complaint with the Lokayukta, for
which, the writ petitioner threatened him over phone calls. A
crime was registered against the writ petitioner under Section
506 IPC and Section 61A of the Indian Telecom Act at
Kothagudem I-Town Police Station on 28.11 2014.
59. It is further stated that the then G.M. (Vigilance)/SCCL
made a complaint to the Director General of ACB, Telangana
State on 23.10.2015 for misusing the money of Employees'
Credit Society and Employees' Club. Around Rs 1.21 Crores of
unaccounted money has been found in the petitoner's bank
accounts by ACB and the ACB registered FIR on 28-10-2015 for
the offence U/Sec.7,9,13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 120-B IPC.
Subsequently, the ACB filed chargesheet and the case is
pending before the Special Court for SPE and ACB cases-cum-
III Addl. District Judge, Warangal, vide CC No. 18 of 2024.
60. It is further stated that even after petitioner's dismissal,
he did not stop his corrupt activities. His past crimes caught
up with him when the Anti-Corruption Department confirmed
his involvement in medical board fraud. Consequently, he was
arrested on February 6, 2019, and sent to Chanchalguda Jail,
Hyderabad on a complaint lodged by an ex-employee Alli
Prakash Rao. The same was reported in Andhra Jyothi
Newspaper dated 07.02.2019. The Central Investigation Unit,
ACB, Telangana, Hyderabad has registered a crime for the
offences Under Section 7(a) and 7A, vide FIR No.01/RCO-CIU-
ACB/2019, dated: 05.02.2019 and after investigation ACB filed
charge sheet. At present the case is pending before the Special
Judge for SPE and ACB was taken on file vide CC.No. 154 of
2024 and the case is coming up for consideration of charges
and the case is posted to 19.06.2025.
61. It is further stated that the writ petitioner has field case
before the C.G.I.T Hyderabad vide L.C.I.D No. 22/2019 and the
same was Awarded by the Tribunal on 27.09.2024. The
Tribunal was pleased to pass the following order:
"In view of the fore gone discussion and finding at Points
No. 1 & II. I am of the considered view that the action of the
Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner Sri.
G. Sampath Kumar, Sr. Asst. Superintendent vide office
proceedings dated 21.03.2019 and proceedings dated:
25.12.2018 is held legal and justified. Hence, the Petitioner
is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. As such, the
petition filed by the Petitioner deserves to be dismissed ad
devoid of merits and hence the petition stands dismissed."
Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as no
valid grounds have been made out to invoke the jurisdiction of
the Hon'ble High Court under Writ of Quo-Warranto.
Learned counsel for the 7th respondent relied upon the
following judgments:
i) B. Srinivas Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water
Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association
and others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731
ii) Pandurang Vithal Kevene vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited and another in SLP (Civil) Diary No.56230 of
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
Before going into the merits of the case, this Court firstly
is inclined to decide with regard to maintainability of the
present Writ Petition since the learned counsel for the
respondents have taken preliminary objection with regard to
maintainability of the same.
62. The present Writ Petition is filed to issue Writ of Quo
Warranto terminating the services of the respondent No.2 from
the post of Director (Finance) in the Singareni Collieries
Company Limited, since his selection and appointment and
consequent extension is against Selection Rules.
63. Petitioner/party-in-person submits that he is having
locus standi to file the present writ of Quo Warranto as per the
Apex Court judgment in the case of Bindra Ban and Others Vs
Sham Sunder and Others, dated 17th April, 1958. Rex v.
Speyer, (1916)1 K.B.595. The rule is well settled that any
private person may apply for a quo warranto in the matter of a
public office, for every person must have an interest in matters
in which concern the Public Government.
64. The petitioner further submits that the jurisdiction of the
High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is limited to one
which can only issue if the appointment is contrary to the
statutory rules and he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Retd. Armed F Medical Association and Ors.
Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC731, wherein it has
been observed as follows:
"...that rules of Locus Standi are relaxed to some extent in a
quo warranto proceedings. A person can effectively claim a
writ of quo warranto and he has to satisfy the court that the
office in question is a public office and has been made in
accordance law or not..."
Thus, as per the law laid down in a catena of decisions
the jurisdiction of the High court to issue a writ of quo warranto
is limited one, which can only be issued when a person holding
the public office does not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed
to be appointed to such office or when the appointment is
contrary to the statutory rules.
65. It is pertinent to mention here that at the threshold, the
present Writ Petition is not maintainable as SCCL is not a
public Office and it is created by a Statue, Constitution or Law.
Routine service appointments in SCCL do not qualify as "public
office." The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a Quo-
Warranto is limited one which can only be issued when the
appointment is contrary, statutory rules. The Writ Petitioner is
a dismissed employee of the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
and he does not have legal right to challenge the appointment
of respondent No.2 as Director (Finance) vide Office order No.
CMD/PS/H/128, dated 5.12.2018 for a period of Two years
from 05.12.2018 and later his extension from time to time.
66. As per the respondents, Rule-4 R/w Annexure, the
qualifications for a regularly appointed to the post Director
(Finance) is as under:
Rule-4. Job Description & Qualification:
Job Description and qualification for various Functional
Directors shall be as indicated in Annexure-1. The posting of
incumbents to the posts of Director (Operation) and Director
(Planning & Projects) is however interchangeable.
Job Description for the post of Director (Finance)
Qualifications:
The incumbent should be a graduate and qualified
Chartered Accountant/Cost Accountant / Company
Secretary / M.B.A. (Finance) preferably from I.I.Ms. A
degree in law is desirable.
Rule-10 of the said rules reads as under:
Rule-10. Deputation:
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the
SCCL shall have right to take suitable candidates on
deputation from other Government Departments
Organizations, for manning the posts of Functional
Directors of the Company.
67. In view of the above, though the procedure prescribed for
appointment to the post of Director Finance is as referred in
Annexure-1, the same shall not take away the right of SCCL to
take suitable candidates on deputation from other Government
Departments for manning the post of Functional Director.
Therefore, the 7th respondent in exercise of the power to take
suitable candidates notwithstanding any other Rules including
without reference to the qualifications prescribed under the
rules, has taken 2nd respondent on deputation from CBIC.
68. In the present Writ Petition, there is no challenge to the
power conferred under Rule-10 of the rules. Therefore, as long
as the suitable candidate is taken on deputation in exercise of
Rule-10, the same cannot be said to be in violation of any
qualification prescribed under Rule-4 r/w. Annexure. The
prayer in the Writ Petition only refers to selection and
appointment as being contrary to selection rules and the same
is wholly misconceived as the respondent No.2 is taken on
deputation not by appointment under Rule-4 R/w. Annexure-1.
Therefore, on this count alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be
dismissed.
69. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.
Srinivas Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply &
Drainage Board Employees Association and others reported
in (2006) 11 SCC 731 wherein it is held as under:
"43. Whether a writ of quo warranto lies to challenge an
appointment made "until further orders" on the ground that
it is not a regular appointment? Whether the High Court
failed to follow the settled law that a writ of quo warranto
cannot be issued unless there is a clear violation of law?
The order appointing the appellant clearly stated that the
appointment is until further orders. The terms and
conditions of appointment made it clear that the
appointment is temporary and is until further orders. In
such a situation, the High Court, in our view, erred in law in
issuing a writ of quo warranto the rights under Article 226
which can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except
in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus.
51. It is settled law by a catena of decisions that the court
cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Government
in the choice of the person to be appointed so long as the
person chosen possesses the prescribed qualification and is
otherwise eligible for appointment. This Court in R.K. Jain v.
Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 119: 1993 SCC (L&S) 1128:
(1993) 25 ATC 464] was pleased to hold that the evaluation
of the comparative merits of the candidates would not be
gone into a public interest litigation and only in a proceeding
initiated by an aggrieved person, may it be open to be
considered. It was also held that in service jurisprudence it
is settled law that it is for the aggrieved person, that is, the
non-appointee to assail the legality or correctness of the
action and that a third party has no locus standi to canvass
the legality or correctness of the action. Further, it was
declared that public law declaration would only be made at
the behest of a public-spirited person coming before the
court as a petitioner. Having regard to the fact that neither
Respondents 1 and 2 were or could have been candidates
for the post of Managing Director of the Board and the High
Court could not have gone beyond the limits of quo warranto
so very well delineated by a catena of decisions of this
Court and applied the test which could not have been
applied even in a certiorari proceedings brought before the
Court by an aggrieved party who was a candidate for the
post.
54. This Court in B. Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India [(2004) 3
SCC 363] held that only a person who comes to the Court
with bona fides and public interest can have locus. Coming
down heavily on busybodies, meddlesome interlopers,
wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no
public interest except for personal gain or private profit
either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other
extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, this Court at
para 14 of the Report held as under: (SCC p. 373, para 14)
"14. The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the
credentials of the applicant: (b) the prima facie correctness
or nature of information given by him; and (c) the
information being not vague and indefinite. The information
should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to
strike a balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody
should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless
allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii)
avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous
petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable
executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot
afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that
under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not
encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to
the executive and the legislature. The court has to act
ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or
meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited
holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They
pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they
have no interest of the public or even of their own to
protect."
70. In the instant case, there is no violation of statutory
provision and, therefore, in our view, a writ of quo warranto
does not lie. If there be any doubt, it has to be resolved in
favour of upholding the appointment.
70. As per respondents, the Writ Petitioner has filed as many
as 18 cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pandurang Vithal Kevene vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited and another in SLP (Civil) Diary No.56230 of 2024
while dealing with an identical issue; where the dismissed
employee was lodging frivolous writ petitions and filing cases
before various forums, observed that in the interest of justice
and genuine and timely claims are addressed efficiently such
an scrupulous, repeated and frivolous litigations, wasting
valuable court time and resources should be avoided at the
initial stages, and held as under:
"22.Considering that precious time of this Court and the
High Court was wasted by the petitioner, in our opinion the
petitioner deserves to be burdened with heavy cost, to give
clear message to the unscrupulous litigants like the
petitioner for not daring to play with the Judicial System.
Such type of litigants are not only polluting the stream of
justice but putting hurdles in its dispensation to others. The
precious judicial time which the petitioner has wasted,
could very well be used for taking up the cases of other
litigants who are waiting for justice. In fact these types of
litigants are choking the system of the court, which is
resulting in delays in decision of other cases. It is also the
duty of the Courts at different levels to curb such type of
litigation so that more time is available for dealing with
genuine litigation.
23. In the light of facts and circumstances as aforesaid,
we are inclined to impose a cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh) against the petitioner to be deposited with the
Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within four
weeks. On failure, recovery be effected from the petitioner
as arrears of land revenue."
71. Learned counsel for the respondents has also brought to
the notice of this Court that the Writ Petition filed by the writ
petitioner in W.P.No.14850 of 2021, this Court after noticing
the conduct of the petitioner, has passed the following order:-
"In Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekarl, a
Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
as under:
"13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a
litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial
process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not
dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the
truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left with
no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should
not venture along the same path in the hope or on a
misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs
are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that
in litigation, as in the law which is practiced in our country,
there is no premium on the truth.
In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the afore stated judgment, the repeated
filing of the writ petitions by the petitioner is nothing but an
abuse of process of this Court and the same cannot be
countenanced by any stretch of imagination. The petitioner
cannot use this Court for settling his private score with the
respondent No.6 and waste the precious time of this Court.
Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of laches, and also on the ground that the earlier
writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty
to file a Public Interest Litigation, but not to file another writ
petition. Even though the petitioner has been granted a
liberty to withdraw the writ petition and file a Public
Interest Litigation, he has not chosen to do so. For the
foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with costs
of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) payable by the
petitioner to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority,
within a period of four weeks from today."
And against the said order of the learned Single Judge, it was
challenged by the writ petitioner in W.A.No.418 of 2021. The
Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court was pleased to
dismiss the Writ Appeal confirming the order of the Learned
Single Judge as under:-
"In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single
Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition, as
successive writ petitions in respect of the same cause of
action are not maintainable. It was a writ petition filed by a
dismissed employee against the Chairman only with an
oblique and ulterior motive. This Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed...."
72. In view of the above, the Writ Petitioner is in the habit of
filing one after the another Writ Petitions against the Singareni
Collieries Company Ltd., and against its officials. To file for quo
warranto, the following conditions must be satisfied:
i) The office must be a public office created by
Statute, Constitution or Law.
ii) The office must be substantive in character (not
temporary or at the pleasure of someone).
iii) The person holding the office must be alleged to be
without legal authority.
73. According to the respondents, as discussed supra, the 2nd
respondent is holding the office and the appointment of 2nd
respondent as Full Additional In-charge to the Post of
respondent No.7 was completely within the prerogative of
respondent No.1 who acts upon the policy decisions of a
democratically elected State Government. Such a decision to
place him as an FAC to the post of respondent No.7 by
respondent No.1 cannot be challenged in the Court of Law.
Moreover, Clause 10 of Selection Rules, which categorically
ordains that nothing therein shall be applicable when the
suitable candidate is selected for the post of Functional
Director(s) from other Government Departments/Organizations.
Thus, the 2nd respondent being an IRS Officer belonging to All
India Services, do not face any embargo to hold the necessary
post of Functional Director like Director(Finance) of SCCL.
74. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that this petitioner has approached this Court
not on bona fide grounds, but out of personal animosity and
with the sole intent to harass the management by filing
repetitive Writ Petitions. Only a person who comes to the
Court with a bona fide and public interest, can have locus
standi. The petitioner has further suppressed material facts
relating to his earlier petitions and litigations and his
involvement in ACB cases. Whenever the petitioner approached
the Hon'ble Court with unclean hands, all the times the Court
did not accept the contentions of the petitioner in all the cases.
Moreover, in some cases, this Court imposed heavy costs on the
petitioner. Even then, the petitioner did not realize anything
and is habituated to file such cases.
75. As stated supra, nearly 18 cases were filed against the
respondent/s one after the other. Some cases ended in
dismissal and some are yet to be decided. In some cases, the
Registry has rejected the cases filed by the petitioner with some
objections, but the petitioner without complying with the said
objections, filing fresh cases. There is no seriousness in the
cases. He is simply filing the cases for passing the time.
Repeatedly filing the Writ Petitions by the petitioner, is nothing
but the abuse of process of this Court. The petitioner cannot
use this Court for setting his private score with the
respondents, and waste the precious time of this Court. So, the
petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands and did
not convince this Court with regard to maintainability of the
Writ Petition, as such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed
on this score only. It is a case of dismissal with exemplary
costs. The petitioner was earlier imposed costs of Rs.50,000/-
by this Court and the same was not complied with. However,
he complied with the same only upon the direction given by this
Court in this Writ Petition. As such, this Court is inclined to
impose lesser costs.
76. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) payable by the
petitioner to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority,
within a period of four weeks from today.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
16th day of September, 2025
BDR
