Alla Ram Prathap V. Union of India

WP/33790/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Alla Ram Prathap against multiple respondents including the Union of India, Director of Income Tax, and several individuals and banks, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the second respondent to investigate and take action against respondents 7 to 11 for alleged violations under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that his complaint filed on 03.10.2023 was not acted upon, which he claimed was illegal and arbitrary. The court, however, found the petition not maintainable as it did not address any personal rights of the petitioner nor did it serve public interest, leading to its dismissal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724614 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR; K MAMATA; GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION
• Assessee Lawyers: S SURENDER REDDY
• Keywords: Income Tax; Violation of Principles of Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus; Non-conduct of enquiry
• Section: 151 CPC

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI wRtr PETtTtoN NO.33790 0F 2023 [337e 1 ...PETITIONER Alla Ram Prathap, S/o. Alla Ramchander, Age: 54 years, Occ. LIC Employee, FUo. H.No.2-1 0-1647/3'1 , Poladi Sathya Towers, Chaitanyapuri Colony, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. Between: AND 1 Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. The Director of Income Tax Department, (lnvestigation Wing), 8th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner and lnspector General, Stamps and Registration Department, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 4. The Sub-Registrar, Jagitial SRO, Jagitial District. 5. The State Bank of lndia, Yellareddyguda Branch, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Branch Manager. 6. The HDFC Bank Limited, Main Branch, Ambedkar Road, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, Rep. by its Branch Manager. 7. Metta Surender Rao, S/o. Dayananda Rao, Age. 73 years, Occ. Retired Employee, Ri/o. H.No.3-1-233, Puranipet, Jagitial Town and District, presently residing at C/o. Teju Flour Mill, Near Basava Statue, Vani Nagar, Jagitial, Jagitial District. B. Metta Tirumal Kumar, S/o. Dayananda Rao, Age. 58 years, Occ. RTC Employee, Ri\"/o. H.No.3-1-230, Puranipet, Ja-gitial Town and District, presently residing at H.No.1-5-KA, 0031 , ASS, 1001020, Sri Laxmi Ganesh Apartment' Ganesh Nagar, Jagitial, Jagitial District. 9. Mettapalli Buchi Reddy, S/o. Gangaram Age-.-48 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.4-109/1, Yakeenpur, Korutla Town and Mandal, Jagitial District. l0.Nvalakonda Vishnuvardhan Rao, S/o. Tirupathi Rao, Age. 65 years' Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.2-6-356, NGO's Colony Road, Near Reddy Function Hall, Waddepalli, Hanamkonda Rural, Warangal District. ll.Ramasahayam Harish Kumar, S/o.Ramchandra Reddy, Age. 44 years, Occ. B.usiness, Fl/o. H.No. 2-5-360, Flat No. 401, Satya-nr Shivam -Apartment, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not conducting any enquiry on the sale transactions done by the respondents 7 to 11 and not taking any action against the respondents 7 to 1'1 under the provisions of lncome Tax Act on the complaint made by the petitioner on 03.'10.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of process of law, violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the rules and in violation of the provisions of the lncome Tax Act and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to conduct the enquiry on the transactions mentioned in the representation and take stringent action against the respondents 7 to 11 under the provisions of lncome Tax Act under intimation to the petitioner by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner on 03.10.2023 in the interest of Justice. IA 10F 2023 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to conduct the enquiry on the transactions mentioned in the representation and to take stringent action against the respondents 7 to .l 1 under the provisions of lncome Tax Act by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner on 03.10.2023 in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SMT. K. MAMATA, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S to 1 1 : - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI{ARAMJI WRIT PETITIoN No.3379O OF 2023 ORDER:@er Hon'ble Si Justice P-SAM KOSHY) 1. Taking into consideration the relief sought for in the present writ petition which primarily is for issuance of writ of mandamus to the 2nd respondent, so far as respondent Nos'7 to 11 is concerned. 2. We are primarily is of the considered opinion that the present is a writ petition where there does not seem to be any agitation in respect of any right of the petitioner which stands adversely effected or which has been infringed upon seeking for the interference of this Court with the writ jurisdiction. The present is also not a writ petition in the nature of public intetest litigation as it sta:tds. 3. In the given factual backdrop of the case, this Court would be frnd it difficult to entertain this writ petition for the aforesaid reasons. However, the right of the petitioner would be reserved to avail such other remedies and to file such other petitions ventilating his grievance. ..,,. 2 4. Accordingly, this Writ petition stands disposed of as not maintainable 5. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if aly in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/-R. KARTHIKEYAN ASSISTANT REGFAR I To, MP GJP //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. One CC to SRI S. SURENDER REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] 2. one cc to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia toPUCl 3. One CC to Smt. K' MAMATA, S'C for lncome Tax [OPUC] 4 Two CCs to GP for Stamps and Registration' High Court for the State of '' tetingana at HYderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD CoPies w' HIGH COURT DATED:1 511212023 slArE o $i rN tt () t o r.sFfi:' ORDER WP.No.33790 of 2023 i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS g c<(sd Y_- {')€ "