IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.37094 OF 2025 DATE : 04.12.2025 Between:

Arepally Anvesh …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana & Others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in pressurizing and coercing the petitioner to present before the 3^rd respondent Commission on the behest the respondent No.5, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct respondent No.3 not to call the petitioner to appear before the 3^rd respondent Commission and not to interfere with personal me, liberty of the petitioner and pass such an order or orders as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience and to pass......”

2. Heard Ms.Sandhya Rani Racharla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 3/the Telangana State Commission for Women, at the instance of respondent No. 5, who is the wife of the petitioner, and allegedly in collusion with her brother, a Circle Inspector of Police, has issued a notice directing the petitioner to appear before the Commission. He further submits that the matrimonial issues between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 have already been amicably settled. However, by suppressing this fact, respondent No. 5 has once again approached respondent No. 3, resulting in the impugned notice for appearance. It is contended that such action, being unwarranted and motivated, the learned counsel prays that appropriate directions be issued by this Court to protect the petitioner’s rights.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, based on a representation made by respondent No. 5, respondent No. 3 issued a notice dated 22.11.2025, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Commission. However, instead of responding to the said notice, the petitioner has chosen to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, seeking a direction to quash the notice. It is contended that the writ petition, being premature and misconceived, is not maintainable against a mere notice of appearance, which by itself does not infringe any legal or fundamental right. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 has issued a notice for appearance, allegedly at the instance of respondent No. 5 and her brother. The claim of the petitioner indicates that the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 had earlier been settled. However, it is equally clear that upon receiving a subsequent representation, respondent No. 3 being a statutory body empowered under the Telangana State Commission for Women Act, 1998 (and analogous to the National Commission for Women Act, 1990) – issued a notice merely to seek the petitioner’s version before proceeding further.

7. The petitioner’s explanation that he could not appear due to his private employment and difficulty in obtaining leave is not a legally sustainable ground to bypass such notice. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, a mere show-cause notice or summons does not, by itself, give rise to a cause of action for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226, unless it is patently without jurisdiction or issued in violation of natural justice. In the present case, the issuance of notice by respondent No. 3 is within its statutory competence, as the Commission is empowered to inquire into complain