IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.4731 OF 2026 DATED : 16.03.2026 Between:

Boddu Sunil Kumar, …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.

… Respondents ORDER:-

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not taking any action against the 4^th respondent, who is trying to seize the vehicle of the petitioner Car bearing NO.TS 28 TA 2783 without following due process of law and without issuing any notice to the petitioner illegally harassing the petitioner and also inspected the house of the petitioner by harassing the petitioner family members by the 4^th respondent, respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not take any action against the 4^th respondent and not provided any protection to the petitioner and his family members by considering the representations dated 24.09.2024 and 25.07.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representations dated 24.09.2024 and 25.07.2025 of the petitioner in the interest of justice and to pass…”

2. Heard Mr. P.V. Krishnamachary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and with their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Cab Driver. He had purchased a Car bearing No.TS 28 TA 2783 by availing a loan of Rs.6.00 lakhs from respondent No.4- Bank and he has been paying regularly Equated Monthly Instalments (E.M.I.) to respondent No.4. He would further submit that, due to ill health and financial constraints, the petitioner could not pay one E.M.I. to respondent No.4 and the same was also informed to respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, whenever the petitioner had taken the vehicle for transport, the recovery agents of respondent No.4 used to follow his Car and have been trying to take back the Car. Therefore, in that regard, the petitioner made a representation, dated 24.09.2024 to respondent Nos.2 and 3. Even after receipt of the said representation, the respondent-police did not take any action. He would further submit that the recovery agents of respondent No.4 went to the petitioner’s house on 24.07.2025 and tried to take back the Car and also harassing to pay the amounts due as per the calculation of respondents, without following the guidelines of R.B.I. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation, dated 25.07.2025 before respondent Nos.2 and 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, even after receipt of the said representation, respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not take any action against him.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, basing on the written instructions, would submit that, acting on the complaint of the petitioner a Petty Case is registered under Section 296 (b) of B.N.S. and was informed the same to the petitioner through Registered Post on 17.02.2026. Since Petty case has already registered, the cause in this writ petition does not survive for further adjudication.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and since a petty case is already registered under Section 296(B) of BNS against respondent No.4, this Court is of the opinion that nothing remains in this Writ Petition.

6. Under these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by granting the liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies as available under law. S