1. Landowners sought diversion of electrical transmission line alignment through their land, alleging unauthorized entry and lack of land acquisition proceedings for tower erection. (Para 2 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 39630
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
Nageshwar Rao Nagi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 23767 OF 2012
Important Points
An advocate who continues to practice and represent parties in court despite a subsisting suspension order from the Bar Council commits fraud on the court and is liable for criminal prosecution and contempt of court.
Subject
Civil - Professional Misconduct
Act Referred
Indian Telegraphic Act
Constitution of India: Art.226
Advocates Act, 1961: S.5, S.35
Contempt of Courts Act
Constitution of India: Art.226
Advocates Act, 1961: S.5, S.35
Contempt of Courts Act
Headnote
(A) Land Acquisition - Power Transmission Lines - Dispute over ownership and alignment - Where revenue records indicate land belongs to a third party and construction is already completed, a writ petition for shifting lines is devoid of merit and not maintainable. (Para 8)
(B) Professional Misconduct - Suspension of Advocate - Practice during suspension - Appearing as an advocate and filing vakalats while under suspension by the Bar Council constitutes a fraudulent act on the court and interference with the administration of justice. (Para 14, 15)
(C) Legal Profession - Statutory Authority - Orders of Bar Council - A suspension order passed by the Bar Council is a binding order of a statutory body and must be honored unless stayed or set aside by a competent judicial forum. (Para 13)
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to the shifting of power lines and whether the conduct of the suspended advocate in practicing law during suspension warrants criminal and contempt proceedings.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed; criminal complaint and contempt proceedings initiated against the suspended advocate.
(B) Professional Misconduct - Suspension of Advocate - Practice during suspension - Appearing as an advocate and filing vakalats while under suspension by the Bar Council constitutes a fraudulent act on the court and interference with the administration of justice. (Para 14, 15)
(C) Legal Profession - Statutory Authority - Orders of Bar Council - A suspension order passed by the Bar Council is a binding order of a statutory body and must be honored unless stayed or set aside by a competent judicial forum. (Para 13)
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to the shifting of power lines and whether the conduct of the suspended advocate in practicing law during suspension warrants criminal and contempt proceedings.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed; criminal complaint and contempt proceedings initiated against the suspended advocate.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinod Kumar Kethepally, A. Ushi Reddy
For the Respondents: N. Sreedhar Reddy
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinod Kumar Kethepally, A. Ushi Reddy
For the Respondents: N. Sreedhar Reddy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contested land utilization without acquisition; Respondents defended the project as authorized under relevant statutes and asserted the land belonged to third parties. (Para 6 )
3. The court found the project was previously completed and title records indicated the property belonged to third persons, rendering the writ petition devoid of merit. (Para 8 )
4. Writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate remedy for disputes involving private land rights and completed public infrastructure projects where no violation of fundamental rights is established. (Para 8 )
5. The writ petition is dismissed, and the registry is directed to initiate criminal and contempt proceedings against an individual for fraudulent conduct before the court. (Para 9 , 16 )
6. Can private landowners use a writ petition to challenge the alignment of electrical transmission lines after project completion?
No, if the line works are already complete and the petitioners fail to establish title over the affected land or a violation of fundamental rights, the court will decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (Para 8 )
7. What are the consequences for an individual who impersonates an advocate while under suspension by the Bar Council?
An individual who continues to represent parties as an advocate while suspended by the Bar Council commits a fraud on the court, interference with the administration of justice, and is liable for criminal prosecution and contempt proceedings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
8. Does a suspension order issued by a statutory body remain in force if the practitioner unilaterally ignores it?
Yes, an order passed by a statutory body with perpetual succession remains in full force and must be obeyed until it is formally stayed, set aside, or interdicted by a competent judicial forum. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 )
O R D E R:
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Kethepally, learned counsel for Petitioner No. 2, Sri A. Ushi Reddy, Party-in-Person, Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 to 6. The Writ Petition as against the 1st petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 06.07.2026.
2. Petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural land in Survey Nos. 114, 116, 15, 28, 88, 98, 99, 100, 101, 117 and 125, totally admeasuring Acs. 25.00 situated at Bayannagudem Village, Mahalingam Gram Panchayath, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R. District. It is contended that some unknown persons started digging the lands belonging to petitioners and on enquiry, it was informed that they were digging the lands at the instance of AP TRANSCO for laying of 220 KV DC line Sadashivapeta from 400/220 KV Yeddumailaram Sub-Station in Medak District. It is contended that the Superintending Engineer of AP TRANSCO entered into contract with M/s Laxmi Transmission (JV with M/s SKNR Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad) for laying the said line. On coming to know about the same, petitioners approached the authorities and filed Application on 18.12.2011 including before the Chairman and Managing Director, AP TRANSCO, requesting for rerouting the alignment by shifting two pillars which were laid in the middle of their land, to the edge of their land. It is contended that even though there was possibility of shifting the two pillars, Respondents have not done so, thereby making their land unfit.
2.1. Petitioners contend that they made hectic efforts by approaching all the Respondents but as the same is of no use, the present Writ Petition is filed, inter-alia contending that no acquisition proceedings have been initiated by Respondents but straightaway they commenced the work in the properties of petitioners.
3. When the Writ Petition was listed on 06.07.2026, this Court recorded the docket orders as under:
“ When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.A.Ushi Reddy, party- in-person has filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the present writ petition against petitioner No.1.Permission is granted, accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn against petitioner No.1. Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the cause title.However, the other learned counsel appearing in this matter had raised preliminary objection stating that Mr.A.Ushi Reddy i.e., erstwhile learned counsel for the petitioner was suspended from practice till the disciplinary proceedings against him stands concluded by the Bar Council of the State of Telangana vide Notification dated 25.11.2025 and that the said Mr.A.Ushi Reddy, on an earlier occasion argued the matter as an Advocate by wearing a band and Gown. The said notification dated 25.11.2025 was placed before this Court.This Court, on noticing the same, had raised the query as to how the said Mr.A.Ushi Reddy can argue before this Court by wearing Gown and band, when he portrayed himself as a party-in-person. There was no response from the said Mr.A.Ushi Reddy, which is a highly objectionable behaviour. Further the said Mr.A.Ushi Reddy also left the Court by screaming that there were several criminal cases pending against him and nothing has happened till date and he is ready to face any sort of consequences.The other learned counsel seeks time to file an affidavit to that extent.Post the matter on 13.07.2026”.
4. Further docket orders are extracted below:
13.07.2026 “ Heard Sri Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner No.2.Learned Counsel for petitioner No.2 has filed a detailed affidavit stating that Mr.A.Ushi Reddy was suspended by the Secretary, Bar Council of Telangana, vide Notification dated 25.11.2025. It is further stated that he is involved in several cases and, despite being under suspension, has continued to file Vakalaths.The Secretary, Bar Council of Telangana, is hereby directed to place on
