w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Allu Srinivasa Rao v/s State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- AT HOME INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17211DL2001PTC112255

Company & Directors' Information:- V HOME PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109331

Company & Directors' Information:- G. P. HOME PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U70102MH2011PTC213056

Company & Directors' Information:- RAO & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TN1948PTC002316

    Writ Petition No. 12849 of 2019

    Decided On, 11 May 2020

    At, High Court of for the State of Telangana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

    For the Petitioner: D.V. Rao, Advocate. For the Respondents: A. Manoj Kumar, Assistant Government Pleader for Home.



Judgment Text


1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuing a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the 2nd respondent in taking steps to protect the life of petitioner’s son from the 5th respondent i.e., the petitioner’s wife, by registering a case against her and issuing a Look-out-Circular (LOC), as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. This case is listed today ‘For Hearing’ and is taken up through Video Conferencing.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, claims to be residing in the city of New Jersey, United States of America (USA). The petitioner and 5th respondent i.e. Allu Jaya Madhavi, were living in USA as husband and wife. It is claimed that the petitioner and 5th respondent have applied for and obtained divorce from the court in USA. It is further claimed by the petitioner that, the 5th respondent has transferred property purchased by the petitioner in Hyderabad, in favour of her parents by forging the petitioner’s signatures and questioning her actions, the petitioner has filed cases before the High Court for the State of Telangana. While that being so, the petitioner claims that the 5th respondent has recently kidnapped the petitioner’s son by name, Master Allu Sai Kalyan, who was leaving with him and forcibly brought him to India. Petitioner also claims that the 5th respondent is threating to kill his son, if the petitioner does not withdraw the cases filed by petitioner against the 5th respondent. It is also stated that two days prior to the petitioner lodging the complaint with the 2nd respondent viz., 21st June, 2019, the petitioner’s son was forcibly taken to India by the 5th respondent from USA and the petitioner’s son is in the custody of the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent is now staying at Hanuman Junction. Stating the above, the petitioner has lodged an e-mail complaint with the 2nd respondent on 21.06.2019 at 12.26 AM EDT (Eastern Day Time) requesting the 2nd respondent police to register the complaint and protect the petitioner’s son from the illegal custody of the petitioner’s wife as well as issue a Look-out-Circular to prevent her from escaping from India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the 2nd respondent, with whom the petitioner has lodged the above complaint through e-mail, has not taken any action, while the 2nd respondent is known to take action by eliminating people through encounter. Despite this Court cautioning the learned counsel for the petitioner not to make irrelevant submissions unconnected with the case, learned counsel for the petitioner persisted with the same.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with concocted facts to mislead the court. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that based on the complaint made by the petitioner on 21.06.2019, the 2nd respondent had got caused an enquiry with regard to the alleged immovable property and found that no such property exists as claimed by the petitioner. Further, by the said complaint itself, since it is stated that the 5th respondent is now residing at Hanuman Junction which is in Vijayawada of Krishna District, State of Andhra 5 Pradesh, the 2nd respondent authority has no jurisdiction over the State of Andhra Pradesh and the same had been informed to the petitioner through e-mail on 26.06.2019. That, despite such communication being sent, the petitioner is pursuing with the present writ petition, and therefore, prays that the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

7. In reply to the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when such a complaint is lodged by the petitioner expressing concern about the life and liberty of the son of the petitioner, the respondent police ought to have registered a zero FIR and ought to have swung into action and transferred the case to the concerned police station having jurisdiction.

8. Since, safety and security of a person is involved, this court decided to examine the matter in detail and queried with the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how and where did the kidnap take place and how did the 5th respondent come to India along with the petitioner’s son - the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated the sequence of events to be as under :

On the day the petitioner lodged the complaint with the 2nd respondent, “the 5th respondent rang the bell of the petitioner’s house in New Jersey, and when petitioner opened the door, the 5th respondent, barged into the house and pulled the son from the petitioner’s house forcibly, put him in a car and drove to airport and took a flight to India.”

9. Based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner vide 21.06.2019 claiming to be from USA and also the facts of the case as narrated by the counsel during the course of hearing, it is the admitted case of the petitioner, that the petitioner’s son is stated to be kidnapped from his 6 custody in U.S.A. The case as pleaded before this court as narrated above, is at variance from the facts stated in the complaint.

10. In the complaint lodged by the petitioner with the 2nd respondent through e-mail claiming to be from USA by mentioning the USA address and EDT, it is stated that the 5th respondent had kidnapped petitioner’s son ‘recently’, without mentioning the date of such occurrence and how recently the said incident having taken place. Nothing has been mentioned or stated in the affidavit, as to what action the petitioner had taken, with regard to the alleged incident of kidnapping, either on the day of lodging of the complaint with the 2nd respondent as claimed by the counsel during the course of hearing or during the period between ‘recently’ to the date of lodging of complaint, as stated in the complaint. Further, the facts as stated by the petitioner also do not lend any credence to the case of the petitioner, for the fact that, travel from USA to India, requires a person to possess a passport, VISA and is also required to go through immigration check for stamping of departure and arrival etc., apart from possessing a air-ticket to travel and it is not expected of a boy carrying his passport with an Indian VISA with him, while being in the house, during the alleged incident of kidnapping. Though, the sequence of events as stated are no less cinematic, this court is at a loss to fathom the reason behind the petitioner lodging the complaint with the 2nd respondent when the alleged incident took place in USA and the 5th respondent along with the kidnapped boy are living at Hanuman Junction, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist, in the State of A.P., as per petitioner’s own assertion.

11. The fallacy of the case of the petitioner is further borne out from the fact that, though the petitioner sought to give an impression that the complaint is being made from USA by altering time zone settings in the e-mail i.e, EDT (Eastern Day Time settings as applicable in USA by advancing an hour during summer time), the affidavit filed into this court is sworn to by the petitioner on 22.06.2019 at Hyderabad., the following day of the complaint, without even waiting for a day and the signed papers have been filed into the court on 24.06.2019. This only goes to show that the petitioner was premeditated to file the present writ petition on some pretext or the other and in furtherance thereof has lodged the present complaint by e-mail as if being sent from USA. The another aspect that goes to show the petitioner not approaching this court by stating true facts would be evident from the affidavit filed into this court, wherein it is claimed that the petitioner is presently residing at 1333, Bay RD, Sharon, MA 02067, i.e., in Massachusetts State of USA, while in the complaint lodged with the respondent no. 2, the petitioner has shown his address as 246, Academy St., 3rd Fl, Jersey City, New Jersey, NJ 07306, USA. Further, if the affidavit is sworn to by the petitioner in Massachusetts State of USA, as being claimed, the same should bear apostille or atleast signed before a Notary Public in USA before being sent to India. In addition, it is not clear as to why the petitioner chose to mention New Jersey address in the complaint, if he is living in the State of Massachusetts of USA, as shown in the affidavit. On the other hand, it is evident that the petitioner using USA time zone settings in his e-mail, has lodged a complaint with the 2nd respondent to show that such complaint is being made from USA, while the petitioner being in Hyderabad, may be anticipating that the complaints made from USA receive the desired attention.

12. Though there are many more shortcomings in the case of the petitioner, including the claim of the son being in the custody of the petitioner before being kidnapped by the 5th respondent as per the judgment of divorce dated 08.08.2016 of the Norfolk Probate and family Court, the property being transferred by the 5th respondent by allegedly forging the signatures of the petitioner, this court is of the view that the same are not required to be considered since the same would not advance the case of the petitioner any further and on the other hand would go to show the falsity of the claim being made by the petitioner.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner as a last ditch effort, submits that though as per the communication dated 26.06.2019, the place where 5th respondent resides may fall under the jurisdiction of the Police authorities of State of AP, the 2nd respondent ought to have registered a “0” FIR and take up the investigation. The said submission as made by the learned counsel is not found in the pleadings and this court is aware that the above submission is being made, since the concept of “0” FIR has been talked about in recent times due to an unfortunate occurrence in the State. Though, the concept of registering a “0” FIR was suggested by Justice Verma Committee constituted in the year 2012 to recommend amendments to Criminal Law particularly in relation to offences against women, the same was not implemented in the State of Telangana. It is only from the 04th December, 2019, the “0” FIR concept was introduced in the State of Telangana, where a complaint can be lodged in any police station even if the offence takes place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said police station. However, the “0” FIR was introduced only in respect of offences against women such as women missing cases and not in relation to other cases. Thus, at the relevant point of time when the petitioner lodged a complaint, the “0” FIR concept was not in place and also that the same is not applicable to the cases of the present nature being complained off.

14. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this court to show that the petitioner took any further action by approaching the concerned authorities in the State of Andhra Pradesh after being informed of the offence committed being outside the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent, by e-mail dated 26.06.2019 issued from the office of the 2nd respondent in response to the e-mail complaint dated 21.06.2019 lodged by the petitioner. In absence of any such action being taken, would go to show that the complaint lodged by the petitioner is not genuine and is intended to bolster up the petitioner’s fight against his wife in the matrimonial and pending civil disputes. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sumer Singh Salkan V. Asst. Director (Delhi) (2010(4) CCR 134), is a case dealing with opening of Look Out Circular against the petitioner in the said case and has no relevance to the facts of the present case. On the other hand the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Bimla Rawal and others V. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008(1) LRC 391 (Delhi), is more apposite, where the Delhi High Court was pleased to quash the “0” FIR registered in Delhi for an offence committed in Mumbai.

15. In view of the above, the action of the 2nd respondent in not registering a case based on the e-mail complaint of the petitioner dated 21.06.2019, cannot be found fault with, as it is clear that the 2nd respondent has no authority at all either to register the case, since, the alleged offence did not take place within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent, nor the 5th respondent was residing within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent authority. The 2nd respondent authority cannot even take steps for issue of LOC as being claimed by the petitioner. The entire endeavor of the petitioner appears, some how or the other, to have a case registered against his wife, to settle their inter se matrimonial / civil disputes unconnected with the alleged incident. Further, as the petitioner has approached this court with unclean hands, concocted facts and by not making the true disclosure of events, is not entitled for relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Sharma V. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others (2008) 12 SCC 481), where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe –

“34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentione

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d judgment was further pleased to observe that – “39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.” 16. Having regard to the above settled position of law and the facts of the case as stated herein above, the writ petition, set in motion by the petitioner, is misconceived and an abuse of process of law and is accordingly liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority. 18. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

05-10-2020 Shekh Rafiq Versus State of Maharashtra, through it's Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M/s. Arun Kumar Kamal Kumar & Others Versus M/s. Selected Marble Home & Others Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 Sushma Rani & Another Versus H.N. Nagaraja Rao & Another High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Sushma Rani & Another Versus H.N. Nagaraja Rao & Another High Court of Karnataka
30-09-2020 Harish Trivedi Versus State of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Home & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
30-09-2020 A.B. Venkateswara Rao Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
29-09-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another Versus S. Indramoorthy High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another Versus S. Indramoorthy High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 C. Sivasankaran Versus Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-09-2020 Manoj @ Sallar & Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
24-09-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by The Assistant Labour Officer, Munnar, Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam Versus Annakutty Varghese, Proprietress, M/s. Misha Holiday Home, Munnar High Court of Kerala
23-09-2020 Mahabooba Jailani Versus The Home Secretary, Home Department (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Dr. H.T. Arvind Rao & Another Versus Dr. Kumuda & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Kumaresan @ Chetty Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Sundaram Home Finance Limited Versus Rahul Jayvantrao Kaulavkar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-09-2020 Vijay Vilasrao Sutare Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through, Secretary, home department, State of Maharashtra, Mantralay Mumbai & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-09-2020 Jeevitha Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary, Home,Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-09-2020 Mittal Electronics Versus Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 M/s. Smart Logistics, Unity Building Puthiyapalom, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M. Gopinath Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Home Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthauram & Others High Court of Kerala
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-09-2020 K. Ebnezer Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-08-2020 Karnataka Professional Colleges Foundation Rep. by its Secretary R.V. Govinda Rao & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2020 Ram Vikram Singh (In Person) Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-08-2020 Mahendra Yadav Versus State of Assam Represented By Home Secretary Government of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 Bhimsen Tyagi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government (Poll), Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
26-08-2020 K. Ranga Rao & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
24-08-2020 Sumathi Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-08-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-08-2020 G. Naganna Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-08-2020 Asuru Jyothi Versus Asiro Someswara Rao High Court of Andhra Pradesh
14-08-2020 Kasmikoya Biyyammabiyoda & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Home Secretary, Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
14-08-2020 Salman @ Baba Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
14-08-2020 R. Suresh Kumar Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Home Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-08-2020 A.V.V.B. Eeswara Rao Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-08-2020 A. Pushpaganthi Versus The State rep by its the Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 P.V. Rao, Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai Versus Anil Baburao Pansare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-08-2020 Thripurala Suresh Versus The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
07-08-2020 S. Thangam Versus The Home Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 S. Thangam Versus The Home Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 Mohemmed @ Bava Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary to Home, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2020 Vadde Padmamma Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-08-2020 L. Srinivasan Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others Versus Siva Lakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-08-2020 Baliram Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Section Officer Home Department (Special) Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-07-2020 Dr. Ambadan Rao & Others Versus State of Rajasthan, Through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Medical, Health & Family Welfare, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
30-07-2020 Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravai High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-07-2020 C.R. Mahesh Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
17-07-2020 Dr. M. Sudheendra Rao Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
17-07-2020 P.L. Vishweshwar Rao Versus Union of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-07-2020 M.G. Jose & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Government of Kerala, Department of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Sasikala Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Sk. Imran Ali Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-07-2020 K. Deepa Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 Radhakrishnan Versus The Home Secretary (Prison) Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2020 Routhu Lakshman Rao Versus State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
09-07-2020 R.N. Arul Jothi & Others Versus The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Cts.V) Department Secretariat Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-07-2020 T. Angayarkanni Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-07-2020 Velankani Information Systems Limited, Represented by its Manging Director, Kiron D. Shah Versus Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-07-2020 Makuko Chukwuka Muolokwo Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Home Department, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-07-2020 Esakkimuthu Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others. Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-07-2020 Vettaiyan Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 V. Vijayakumarasamy Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Transport II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 R. Thangam Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department (Police IV) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 Sulochani Versus State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Additional Chief Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-06-2020 Kamala Versus The State represented by its: The Secretary to Government (Home) Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 Dhanalakshmi Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai. Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-06-2020 Malar Versus The Principal Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-06-2020 R. Sampath Versus Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-06-2020 India Pentecostal Church of God, Represented by Its General President, Pastor (Dr.) T. Valson Abraham & Another Versus Government of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
25-06-2020 Sintu Kumar Versus State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
23-06-2020 P.S. Srinivas Rao Versus 60th Padubidri Grama Panchayath, Represented by its Panchayath Development Officer & Others High Court of Karnataka
22-06-2020 Vemuri Swamy Naidu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-06-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by The Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Home & Vigilance Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus P. Pradeepkumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Records Bureau, Office of the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, Residing at Cheruvaickal, Sreekaryaym, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
18-06-2020 Bhawan Singh Garbyal & Another Versus State of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secy. Home & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
16-06-2020 Jitendra Mohan Singh Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
15-06-2020 Ganta Srinivasa Rao Versus The State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
15-06-2020 Integrated Enterprises India Ltd. & Another Versus Ippili Krishna Surekha Rao & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 P.P. Ramachandra Kaimal Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Department of Home, Kerala Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
11-06-2020 J. Antony Jayakumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home (Prison IV), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-06-2020 G.J. Rao. R.R. Dist. Versus Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-06-2020 Gattu Vaman Rao Versus State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-06-2020 M. Sujatha Versus State represented by the Secretary to Government Department of Home & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Surya Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-06-2020 P. Murugesan Versus State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Nayee Soch Society (Regd.) Versus Ministry of Home Affairs & Others High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 Balraj Versus State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-05-2020 Vijay Ganesh @ Vijay @ Kurangu Vijay Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-05-2020 Bandaru Manikyala Rao @ Manikya Rao & Others Versus Kedari Srinivasa Rao & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
26-05-2020 L. Jayalakshmi Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-05-2020 A.B. Venkateswara Rao Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary to the Govrnment, Amaravathi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
22-05-2020 Suryadevara Venkata Rao Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
19-05-2020 M.G. Narasimha Rao Versus The Chairman, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Brij Kishore Dwivedi Versus Union of India, represented by and through the Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi in the Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Tripura
18-05-2020 RM. Swamy Versus Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras