I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD W.P.No.25009 OF 2023 Betw een:

Konda Ravi Goud … Petitioner And National Commission For Schedule Castes, Government of India & others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 03.06.2024 THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes see the fair copy of the Judgment?

__________________

SUREPALLI NANDA, J THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA W.P.No.25009 OF 2023 % 03.06.2024 Betw een:

# Konda Ravi Goud ... Petitioner And $ National Commission For Schedule Castes, Government of India & others … Respondents < Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N.Chandra Shekar ^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri A.S.Vasuden, for R1 G.P. for Revenue for R2 G.P. for Home for R3 Sri P.Padma Rao, for R4.

? Cases Referred:

--

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA W.P. No.25009 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri N.Chandra Shekar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 and Sri P.Padma Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

PRAYER:

2. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under :

“…declaring the action of Respondent No 1 in proceeding with the inquiry in File. No.014/270/2022-ESDW, filed by Smt. Sheri Nirmala/4^th Respondent, in spite of being made aware that the matter under consideration before Respondent No.1 is subjudice, and pending before the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar, vide OS No. 413 of 2022 and that the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge by its order dated 28/11/2022, allowed IA No.401 of 2022 in OS No 413 of 2022, granting ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent No.4; as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and is against the Rule 4.2 (d) and (e) of the rules framed by Respondent No.1 itself in its Handbook and also violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of The Constitution of India, and consequently direct Respondent No.1 to stay all further proceedings in File.

No.014/270/202- ESDW pending before it...”

3. PERUSED THE RECORD.

A) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.1, in particular, paragraph Nos. 10, 12, 13 and 14, read as under:

“ 10. In reply to Para No. 12 the contention raised by the petitioner in this Para is incorrect and the same is denied. The answering Respondent No. 1 after receipt of the representation from Respondent No. 4 acting within its constitutional mandate and in accordance with law, called for action taken report from the concerned Government authorities as stated in Para No. 1 supra. However, no reply was provided to the answering Respondent No. 1, as such the recommendation dated 23.06.2023 was made in accordance with the procedure followed by the commission. Further the allegation that no notice was issued to the Petitioner and without hearing the petitioner the recommendation dated 23.06.2023 is factually incorrect and misleading. As stated in the above Para No.12 the answering Respondent has called for report from the concerned authority and as no reply was received the recommendation dated 23.06.2023 was passed. There is no procedure contemplated to issue notice to the petitioner prior to taking any action on the complaint. Hence the allegations in this para are denied.

12. In reply to Para Nos.14, 15 and 16 the allegations raised by the petitioner in these paras are incorrect and hence denied. In so far as the allegations that the Petitioner was hopeful that this answering Respondent would abide by the guidelines framed under Rule 4.2(d) and 4.2(e) of the rules in its handbook and would stay further enquiry in the matter and to the dismay of the Petitioner, the Respondent