IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.37235 OF 2025

DATED: 04.12.2025

Between:

Sri Palakurla Jangaiah. … Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep., by its Principal Secretary,

Home Department and 6 others. … Respondents

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

India seeking the following relief/s:-

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in non- considering the representation of the Petitioner dated 15.12.2024 and non-initiating to register the FIR against Respondent No.7, who hatched a plan to extract the money from the Petitioner and stated the sweet words on the name issuance of E-Pattadar Passbook on the land of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac.1.37 Gts in Survey No. 50/E, which is situated at Anthampeta Village, Gattuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District, and obtained Rs.10.00 lakhs bribe and cheated Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India

and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct Respondent Nos.3 to 6 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 15.12.2024 and take the necessary action against Respondent No.7 by registering the F.I.R., who obtained the bribe an amount of Rs.10.00 Lakhs from the Petitioner on the name of issuance of E-Pattadar Passbook on the land of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac.1.37 Gts, in Survey No. 50/E, which is situated at Anthampeta Village, Gattuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District and pass …”

2. Heard Mr.Rapolu Abhinav, learned counsel representing Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on record; Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.K.Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel representing Mr. T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Anti-Corruption Bureau, appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have failed to act upon the petitioner’s representation dated 15.12.2024 seeking initiation of criminal proceedings and registration of an F.I.R. against respondent No. 7, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court seeking an appropriate direction.

4.1. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 submits that, as per the allegations in the petitioner’s representation, the petitioner claimed to have paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to respondent No. 7 for facilitating the issuance of an E-Pattadar Passbook, and that the alleged transaction occurred during the year 2023. It is submitted that the representation was received only on 15.12.2024, i.e., nearly one year after the alleged occurrence. On receipt of the said representation, a discreet enquiry was conducted by the authorities concerned; however, no verifiable material was found to substantiate the allegations.

4.2. It is further submitted that, as per the guidelines governing registration of cases by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), mere submission of a representation does not automatically warrant registration of a crime. Before registering a case, the competent authority is required to conduct a preliminary enquiry to verify whether a cognizable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or any other penal law is made out. In the present case, as the alleged payment was said to have been made voluntarily in 2023, and as there was no contemporaneous allegation of demand or inducement, the facts did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Hence, no case was registered.

4.3. It is further contended that, on a careful reading of the petitioner’s representation, certain contents therein prima facie disclose potential culpability on the part of the petitioner himself, since voluntarily offering or giving grat