Telangana High Court
Narayana Rao Karnati, Died vs The State Of Telangana on 3 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.1207, 17365, 17367, 17389 and
17395 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
The issue involved in these writ petitions is intrinsically
interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together
and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.1207 of 2023 is filed seeking following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate Order or Direction more particularly in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus;
a. To declare the action of the Respondents No.3 & 4, who denied the
request of the Petitioner to mute her name in revenue records pursuant to
Regd. Sale deed dated 29-09-2017 in respect of agricultural land in
Sy.No.130/à°… à°… (Acs.02.00Gts) Sy.No.132/à°‡ 1à°… (Acs.01.00Gts) Sy.No.
130/ à°… à°† (Acs.02.00 Gts), total Acs.05.00 guntas, situated at
Kamsanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under
the guise of prohibitory list pursuant to 2nd Respondent proceedings (1)
Memo No.G3/1894/2018, dated 01-04-2019 and (2) C.No.4014/C-
14/E0W/CID/2015, dated 07-03-2019, in connection with attachment of
properties of M/s. Agri Gold Farms Estates India Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to
FIR No.7/2015, by the CID Police, Hyderabad is being arbitrary, illegal,
unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and
infringement of constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the
Constitution.
b. Consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4, to delist the petitioner’s
land from prohibitory list of properties, accord slot booking on Dharani
portal and accordingly mute the name of the petitioner in all the revenue
records and issue E-Pass Book and all other benefits in respect of
agricultural land covered under Sy.No.130/à°… à°… (Acs.02.00Gts),
Sy.No.132/à°‡ 1à°… (Acs.01.00Gts) Sy.No.130/à°… à°† (Acs.02.00 Gts), total
Acs.05.00 guntas, situated at Kamsanpally Village, Farooqnagar
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by the Dharani online applications dated
08-10-2022 & 09-11-2022 (1) 2200091003, (2) 2200091005 and (3)
2200091008…”
3. W.P.No.17365 of 2023 is filed seeking following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate Order or Direction more particularly in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus;
2
a. To declare the action of the Respondents No.3 & 4, who denied the
request of the Petitioner to mute her name in revenue records pursuant to
Regd. Sale deed dated 04-10-2017 in respect of agricultural land in
Sy.No.132/A, Acs.03.01 guntas, situated at Kamsanpally Village,
Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under the guise of
prohibitory list pursuant to 2nd Respondent proceedings (1) Memo
No.G3/1894/2018, dated 01-04-2019 and (2) C.No.4014/C-
14/E0W/CID/2015, dated 07-03- 2019, in connection with attachment
of properties of M/s. Agri Gold FarmsEstates India Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to
FIR No.7/2015, by the CID Police, Hyderabadis being arbitrary, illegal,
unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and
infringement of constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the
Constitution.
b. Consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4, to delist the petitioner’s
land from prohibitory list of properties, accord slot booking on Dharani
portal and accordingly mute the name of the petitioner in all the revenue
records and issue E-Pass Book and all other benefits in respect of
agricultural land covered under Sy.No.132/A, Acs.03.01 guntas, situated
at Kamsanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by
the Dharani online applications dated 08-10-2022 & 09-11-2022 vide
Dharani Ref No. 2200091027.”
4. W.P.No.17367 of 2023 is filed seeking following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate Order or Direction more particularly in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus;
a. To declare the action of the Respondents No.3 & 4, who denied the
request of the Petitioner to mute her name in revenue records pursuant to
Regd. Sale deed dated 05-10-2017 in respect of agricultural land in
Sy.No.133/EE1, Acs.01.29 guntas, situated at Kamsanpally Village,
Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under the guise of
prohibitory list pursuant to 2nd Respondent proceedings (1) Memo
No.G3/1894/2018, dated 01-04-2019 and (2) C.No.4014/C-
14/E0W/CID/2015, dated 07-03-2019, in connection with attachment of
properties of M/s. Agri Gold FarmsEstates India Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to
FIR No.7/2015, by the CID Police, Hyderabadis being arbitrary, illegal,
unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and
infringement of constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the
Constitution.
b. Consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4, to delist the petitioner’s
land from prohibitory list of properties, accord slot booking on Dharani
portal and accordingly mute the name of the petitioner in all the revenue
records and issue E-Pass Book and all other benefits in respect of
agricultural land covered under Sy.No.133/EE1, Acs.01.29 guntas,
situated at Kamsanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, by the Dharani online applications dated 08-10-2022 & 09-11-
2022 vide Dharani Ref No. 2200091024.”
3
5. W.P.No.17389 of 2023 is filed seeking following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate Order or Direction more particularly in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus;
a. To declare the action of the Respondents No.3 & 4, who denied the
request of the Petitioner to mute her name in revenue records pursuant to
Regd. Sale deed dated 04-10-2017 in respect of agricultural land in
Sy.No.132/E1AA, (Acs.01.00 Gts), Sy.No.133/A, (Acs.00.08 Gts), total
Acs.01.08 guntas, situated at Kamsanpally Village, Farooqnagar
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under the guise of prohibitory list
pursuant to 2nd Respondent proceedings (1) Memo No.G3/1894/2018,
dated 01-04-2019 and (2) C.No.4014/C- 14/E0W/CID/2015, dated 07-
03-2019, in connection with attachment of properties of M/s. Agri Gold
FarmsEstates India Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to FIR No.7/2015, by the CID
Police, Hyderabad is being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, violation of
principles of natural justice and infringement of constitutional rights
guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution.
b. Consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4, to delist the petitioner’s
land from prohibitory list of properties, accord slot booking on Dharani
portal and accordingly mute the name of the petitioner in all the revenue
records and issue E-Pass Book and all other benefits in respect of
agricultural land covered under Sy.No.132/E1AA, (Acs.01.00Gts),
Sy.No.133/A, (Acs.00.08 Gts), total Acs.01.08 guntas, situated at
Kamsanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by the
Dharani online applications dated 08-10-2022 & 09-11-2022 vide
Dharani Ref No. 2200091011.”
6. W.P.No.17395 of 2023 is filed seeking following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate Order or Direction more particularly in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus;
a. To declare the action of the Respondents No.3 & 4, who denied the
request of the Petitioner to mute her name in revenue records pursuant to
Regd. Sale deed dated 14-11-2017 in respect of agricultural land in
Sy.No.133/E, Acs.02.16 guntas, situated at Kamsanpally Village,
Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under the guise of
prohibitory list pursuant to 2nd Respondent proceedings (1) Memo
No.G3/1894/2018, dated 01-04-2019 and (2) C.No.4014/C-
14/E0W/CID/2015, dated 07-03-2019, in connection with attachment of
properties of M/s. Agri Gold FarmsEstates India Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to
FIR No.7/2015, by the CID Police, Hyderabadis being arbitrary, illegal,
unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and
infringement of constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the
Constitution.
b. Consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4, to delist the petitioner’s
land from prohibitory list of properties, accord slot booking on Dharani
portal and accordingly mute the name of the petitioner in all the revenue
records and issue E-Pass Book and all other benefits in respect of
agricultural land covered under Sy.No.133/E, Acs.02.16 guntas, situated
4at Kamsanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by
the Dharani online applications dated 08-10-2022 & 09-11-2022 vide
Dharani Ref No. 2200091022.”
7. Writ Petition No.1207 of 2023 is taken up as a leading case to
decide the lis in this batch of cases.
8. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of
agricultural lands in Sy.No.130/à°… à°… (Ac.02.00 gts) Sy.No.132/à°‡ 1à°…
(Ac.01.00 gts) Sy.No.130/à°… à°† (Ac.02.00 gts), total Ac.05.00 gts,
situated at Kamsanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated
29.09.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that her vendor and
predecessor-in-interest were the absolute owners of the subject
property having purchased under registered sale deeds and their
names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks
and title deeds have also been issued as per the provisions of Andhra
Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 Act vide
Patta No.250, Passbook No.060337 and Patta No.1328 Passbook
No.060434. It is further stated that the petitioner after verification of
entries in the revenue records which depicted that the nature of
lands as patta lands has purchased the lands and thereafter made
an application for mutation of entries in the revenue records. It is her
case that the respondent No.4 instead of deciding the application for
mutation has rejected the same on the ground that the respondent
5
No.3 has informed that in pursuance of registration of Crime
No.7/2015 on the file of CID Police, Hyderabad, the subject
properties are shown in the list of prohibited properties vide Memo
No.G3/1894/2018 dated 01.04.2019 and C.No.4014/C-
14/E0W/CID/2015 dated 07.03.2019 in connection with attachment
of properties of M/s. Agri Gold Farms Estates India Limited. It is
further stated that basis for listing of Sy.Nos.130, 132 and 133 of
Kamsanpally Village in the prohibited properties list is that some
registered sale deeds were found in the name of ECO
Nandanavanam, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar (M/s. Agri Gold Farm
Estates India Pvt. Ltd.) and the respondents without taking
consideration of the sub-division of the said survey numbers have
prohibited entire properties of said survey numbers and since the
sub-division numbers are not shown vide Notification issued in
G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 29.08.2016, the said properties shall be liable
for release from attachment and consequential mutation of their
names in the revenue records.
9. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2, inter
alia stating that the Board of Directors of M/s.Agri Gold Farm
Estates India Pvt. Ltd. have collected huge amounts/deposits from
the innocent public with false promise that after maturity date, the
amounts would be paid/plots would be registered. The said company
6
failed to keep up its promise either in registration of plots/lands or to
return the deposits. On the complaints filed by the aggrieved parties,
cases were registered vide Crime Nos.171/2013, 7/2015 and
583/2016 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w 120-B IPC,
Sec.3 & 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial
Establishments Act, 1999 (for short “Act, 1999”), Sec. 45 of Reserve
Bank of India Act, Sec. 4, 5 r/w 2(c), 3 of Prize Chits and Money
Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 by the CID Police Station,
Telangana were registered. It is further stated that cases were also
registered against the respondent No.5 in the States of Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka and other states as the respondent No.5 has
collected more than Rs.5400/- crores from about 19 Lakh people in
7 States. It is further stated that in the course of investigation, all
the identified properties pertaining to M/s. Agri Gold Farm Estates
India Pvt. Ltd and its sister concern companies situated in the State
of Telangana, State of Andhra Pradesh and other states were freezed
prohibiting transactions. Approximately 330 Acres of M/s. Agri Gold
Farm Estates Pvt. Ltd at Shadnagar Mandal were attached by the
Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.147, Home (SER-IV)
Department, dated 29-08-2016, mentioning the Survey numbers and
their extent of land. It is further stated in the counter that the
petitioner purchased the property from the respondent No.5 which is
a sister concern of M/s. Agri Gold Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd,
7
attached vide G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 29.08.2016 and the director of
the respondent No.5, has issued an authorization letter and sale
deeds were executed in favour of petitioner’s vendor vide document
No.1485/2017 dated 01.03.2017 and petitioner in turn purchased
the said property vide document No.11483/2017. As such the
petitioner is not entitled for de-notifying the property from the list of
prohibits properties and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. An additional counter affidavit has been filed by the
respondent No.2 stating that prior to merging the Farooqnagar
Mandal, in Ranga Reddy District, M/s. Agrigold company started
ventures by name ECO Nandanavanam Ventures, Shadnagar of
erstwhile Mahabubnagar District and in view of reorganization of the
districts, Kamsanpalli Village of Farooqnagar Mandal was transferred
to the Ranga Reddy District. As such the properties held by Agri Gold
Company on the name of ECO Nandanavanam ventures, Shadnagar
were shown without mentioning the details like Kamsanpalle Village
of Farooqnagar Mandal.
11. The respondent No.5 filed counter affidavit stating that he is
the Chairman of M/s.Agri Gold Group and the said company through
its subsidiary companies i.e, M/s.Maatangi Infra Ventures Private
Limited, M/s. Liora Infra Developers Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., M/s.
Mohana Groves Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Avanindra Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd.,
8
M/s. Akhilendra Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd and others purchased an
extent of Ac.165.575 cents between the years 2009 and 2013 at
Kamsanipalli Village, Vityala Village in Mahabubnagar District, in RS
Nos.127/A5, 128, 130/A, 130/E, 132/EE, 130, 128 and 132 under
various sale deeds. It is stated that cases were registered against the
Agri Gold company and investigation is pending for the offences
registered under the various provisions of law. It is stated that the
Government of Andhra Pradesh by invoking Section 3 of Act, 1999
has issued G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 29.08.2016 for attachment of
properties of the company in the States of Andhra Pradesh,
Telangana, Karnataka and Odisha. It is stated that after completing
investigation charge sheets were also filed and said cases are
pending. It is stated that the Directors and persons in key
management position were arrested in connection with the said
crimes and meanwhile 1) V. Ramdas 2) Amgoth Venkatesh and
3)Kommuru Pandu Ranga Reddy, forged the signatures and
resolutions of the company and disposed the same in favour of
various persons. It is also stated that vendors of the petitioner were
made as accused in Crime No.171 of 2013 on the file of Kanagal PS
Nalgonda and the petitions filed seeking discharge were dismissed by
the competent Court. It is also case of the respondent that the
Tealgana Agri Gold customers and agents filed PIL No.193 of 2015 &
batch on the file of the Unified High Court, to initiate action against
9
M/s. Agri Gold company for return of the money and take
appropriate action and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
12. Considered the submissions of Sri B. S. Prasad, learned Senior
Counsel for Sri M. Sudarshan, learned counsel for the petitioner on
record, Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home, Sri
L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Deepak Mishra,
learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and perused the record.
13. The petitioner claims to be owner and possessor of agricultural
lands in Sy.No.130/à°… à°… (Ac.02.00 gts) Sy.No.132/à°‡ 1à°… (Ac.01.00
gts) Sy.No.130/à°… à°† (Ac.02.00 gts), total Ac.05.00 gts, situated at
Kamsanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,
having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated
29.09.2017. It is her case that her vendors and their predecessors-
in-interest purchased the subject properties under registered sale
deeds and their names were also mutated in the revenue records.
The specific contention of the petitioner is that the properties
purchased by her under registered sale deeds and its sub-division
numbers were not mentioned as attached properties in
G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 29.08.2016 as such she is entitled for de-
notifying the properties from the list of prohibited properties and
consequential mutation of entries in the revenue records and
issuance of pattadar passbooks. Whereas it is the case of the
10
respondent No.2 that the petitioner purchased the property from the
accused in Crime Nos.171/2013, 7/2015 and 583/2016 registered
for the offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec.3 & 5 of
Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments
Act, 1999, Sec. 45 of Reserve Bank of India Act, Sec. 4, 5 r/w 2(c), 3
of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 by
the CID Police Station, Telangana, basing on fraudulent documents
and the respondents after verifying that M/s. Agri Gold has
purchased various extents of lands under various registered sale
deeds has notified the properties on the ground that the same were
acquired from the crime proceeds and freezed the properties for
disposal of the same pending adjudication of the case. It is stated
that as per the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial
Establishments Act, 1999, a Special Court has been constituted and
if the petitioners are having any grievance or interest on the
properties which are subject matter of the investigation/ pending
trial has to make necessary application under sub-Section (3) of
Section 6 of the Act. It is stated by the respondent No.5 that M/s.
Agri Gold Company in the process of business has acquired various
extent of agricultural lands in the Telangana and other States and on
the complaint of the depositors/ subscribers, criminal cases are
registered vide Crime Nos.171/2013, 7/2015 and 583/2016 for the
offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec.3 & 5 of
11
Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments
Act, 1999, Sec. 45 of Reserve Bank of India Act, Sec. 4, 5 r/w 2(c), 3
of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 by
the CID Police Station, Telangana and the Division Bench of
combined High Court in PIL case No.193/2015 and
W.P.No.181/2015 and batch appointed a committee for disposal of
the assets of the M/s. Agri Gold Company Limited and its sister
concerns and taking advantage of pendency of the litigation,
fraudulent documents were created over the properties of the
company and in view of the constitution of the Special Court in
terms of Section 6 of the Act, the writ petitions are not maintainable
and prayed for dismissal of the same.
14. A careful examination of the above contentions would reveal
that M/s. Agri Gold Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd. is incorporated and
registered under the provisions of Companies Act, on 19.12.2001,
having its registered office at Hyderabad. The company has procured
various extents of land parcels in the State of Telangana, Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka and other States. The company also floated
sister concern companies and purchased various extents of the
lands. When company committed default, in returning the deposits/
subscription amounts, criminal cases have been registered vide
Crime Nos.171/2013, 7/2015 and 583/2016 for the offences under
12
Sections 406, 420 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec.3 & 5 of Andhra Pradesh
Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for
short “Act, 1999”), Sec. 45 of Reserve Bank of India Act, Sec. 4, 5 r/w
2(c), 3 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act,
1978 by the CID Police Station, Telangana, and pending investigation
into the crime, PIL No.193 and 277/2015 and PIL No.17 and 18 of
2016 and W.P.No.18131 of 2013 and batch have been filed on the file
of the Unified High Court, seeking to secure the properties of M/s.
Agri Gold and disburse the returns from the assets to the depositors.
The State of Telangana has issued G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 29.08.2016
attaching various properties of M/s. Agri Gold Company and its
sister concerns situated in various parts of the State of Telangana.
The Division Bench of this Court while appointing a Committee to
secure the property of the said companies relegated the other issues
to be decided by the Special Court constituted under Section 6 of the
Act. It is apt to refer Section 6 of the Act, which reads as follows:
“Section 6 – Special Court:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the Government shall, with the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification,
constitute a District and Sessions Court as a Special Court.
(2) No Court including a Court constituted under the Presidency
Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 and the Provincial Insolvency Act,
1920, other than the Special Court shall have jurisdiction in
respect of any matter to which the provisions of this Act apply.
(3) Any pending case in any other Court to which the provisions of
this Act apply shall stand transferred to the Special Court.
13
(4) The Special Court shall, on an application by the competent
authority, pass such order or issue such direction as may be
necessary for the equitable distribution among the depositors of
the money realised from out of the property attached.”
15. Section 7(3) of the Act states that any person claiming an
interest in the property attached or any portion thereof may,
notwithstanding that no notice has been served upon him under this
section, make an objection as aforesaid to the Special Court at any
time before an order is passed under sub-section (4) or sub-section
(6). It is stated that the Special Court i.e., the Court of Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, has been constituted for the
cases related to Agri Gold Farms Estates India Private Limited,
Akshaya Gold Farms Villas India Limited etc., and the matters are
pending before the said Court. The Division Bench, in batch of cases
referred above, duly taking into consideration of above provisions of
law vide its order dated 25.02.2022 relegated the petitioners therein
to approach the Special Court, which in turn was directed to decide
the cases in accordance with law.
16. The grievance of the petitioners is that the properties
purchased under registered sale deeds are not forming part of the
G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 29.08.2016. It is their case that their vendors
purchased properties under registered sale deeds from the
respondent No.5 describing the property situated at Sy.No.130/A,
132/E1, Kamsanpalli Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy
14
District. Whereas the properties shown to be attached under the said
G.O, are situated at Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District. In the
absence of clear description of the property, the respondents are not
having any power to list the properties as prohibited properties. The
case of the respondents is that the petitioners vendors creating the
sale deeds as if the respondent No.5 has authorized to dispose of the
properties have made an application for de-listing of the properties.
It is their case that if the respondent No.5 is not having the
properties as notified in the said G.O, there is no question of
petitioners alleged vendors purchasing the properties from the
respondent No.5 under registered sale deeds. In the annexure
attached to the G.O, there is a mention of survey numbers and sub-
division numbers. Whether the same are correlating to the properties
purchased by the petitioners under registered sale deeds and are
different and distinct, are the issues which requires adjudication by
the Special Court on the basis of tangible documents/sale deeds. In
addition to the above, the petitioners except stating that their
properties vary from the notification issued vide G.O.Ms.No.147
dated 29.08.2016, have not questioned the validity or otherwise of
the notification. When there are discrepancies apparent on the face
of the record, this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
cannot express its opinion rendering validity or otherwise of the
documents relied by the petitioners.
15
17. It is settled law that when alternative efficacious remedy is
available or the statute under which the action complaint has been
taken, itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance, a writ
petition is not a remedy to resolve the issues which are required to
be adjudicated on the basis of evidence.
18. In PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank1, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
“23. It could thus be seen that, this Court has clearly held that the High
Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. It
has been held that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters
involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and
the dues of banks and other financial institutions. The Court clearly
observed that, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the
action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must
keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State
Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves
inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery
of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for
redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. It has been held that,
though the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
are of widest amplitude, still the courts cannot be oblivious of the rules of
self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court. The Court further held that
though the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion
and not one of compulsion, still it is difficult to fathom any reason why
the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution.”
19. For the aforesaid reasons, since the petitioners are having
alternative and efficacious remedy to approach the Special Tribunal
and agitate their grievances, the present writ petitions are
misconceived and they are liable to be dismissed.
1
(2024) 6 SCC 579
16
20. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. It is needless
to mention that any observations made in this common order will not
have any bearing over the applications, if any, to be filed by the
petitioners before the Special Court.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions
shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________________
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 03.04.2025
scs