SYSyed Hyder Raza Naqvi v. The Union of India

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

Judgment date: 2026-04-28

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-28. SYSyed Hyder Raza Naqvi v. The Union of India. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

t 33001 ]N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENW EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 14209 OF 2026 Between: Syed Hyder Raza Naqvi, S/o. Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi, Aged about 45 years, Occ. National Convenor, Shia Civil Council for Social Justice, Rl/o. H. No. 6-1- 106212,Lakdi ka pul, Opp. Global Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ... PETITIONER AND ! I 1. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Under Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, I I Central Secretariat, New Delhi, lndia. I I 2. The Secretary to the Govemor of State of Telangana, at Lok Bhavan, I Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana State. I 3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Khairtabad, I Hyderabad. i 4. The State of Telangana, Rep.

by its Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare I Department, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Khairtabad, I I I Hyderabad. I 5. Sri Narendra Modi, Sio. Damodardas Mulchand Modi, aged about 73 years, i ! Member of Parliament, Waranasi, Occ. Prime Minister of lndia, Prime Minister's I Office, at New Delhi, lndia. I I 6. Sri Anurnula Revanth Reddy, S/o. Lale Anumula Narsimha Reddy, aged about 56 years, Member of Legislative I Assembly, Kodangal, Occ. Chief Minister of I State of Telangana, Office of Chief Ministers Office, Camp Office, Somajiguda, i Hyderabad, Telangana State. I 7. ; Sri Mohammed Azharuddin, S/o. Mohammed Azizuddin, aged about 63 years, I Occ. Minister for Minority Welfare, State of Telangani, R/o. H. No. 6_3- I 25211161501, Nest Apartment, Ena Manzil Colony, I Hyderabad - 500 0g2, Telangana State. I I 8. Sri Rahul Gandhi, S/o. Late Rajeev Gandhi, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Member of Parliament, Rae Bareri, Ryo. Bungarow No.

5, Sunehri aagh Roao, ltew oetni - 1 10 001 , lndia. ( ! ! ffF '. 5 9. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Office at Lakdi ka pul, Hyderabad, Telangana. State. ... 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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents No. 1 to 4 and 9 in not considering the Representations 18-12-2025, 30-12-2025,08-01-2026, 2O-O1-2026, 13-02-2026, 06- 03-2026 and 26-03-2026 respectively filed by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and in '19, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia, Consequently direct the respondents No.

1 to 4 and 9 to consider the Representations 18-12-2025,3O-12-2025,08-01-2026, 20-01-2026, 13-02-2026, 06-03-2026 and 26-03-2026 respectively filed by the petitioner by directing the respondents No. 5 to 8 not to interfere into the discharging the duties of the respondents No. I to 4 and 9. l. A. NO: 1 OF 2026 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 respondents No. 1 to 4 and I to consider the Representations 18-12-2025, 30- 12-2025, 08-01-2026, 20-01-2026, 13-02'2026, 06-03-2026 and 26-03-2026 respectively filed by the petitioner pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA RAGHU MANNEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent No. l: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO' DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: GP FOR GENERAL ADMN DEPT' Counsel for the Respondent No.

4: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No. 9: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. S TO 8: - The Court made the following: OROER _\^, Y IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I{YDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAIG WRIT PETITION No. 142O9 of 2026 Dated: 28. o,4. 2026 Between: Sri Syed Hyder Raza Naqvi ... Petitioner AND The Union of India & others ... Respondents ORDER: This writ Petition is rrled under Articre 226 of t. e constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of respondents Nos. l to 4 and 9 in not considering the representations submitted by the peLitioner dated 18. 12. 2025, 3O. 12. 2O2S, 08. O1. 2026, 2O. O1. 2026, 13. 02. 2026, 06. 0. 3. 2026 and 26. 03.

2026 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 16, lg, 2l and30o_A of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the said respondents to consider and dispose of the said representations. 2. Heard Sri Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, leamed counsel for the petitioner; Sri N. Bhuja:rga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No. l; Iearned Government pleader for General Administration Departrr _,-*.. ,. t€Dt, for respondent \ Nos. 2 and 3; learned I I Government Pleader for Social Welfare, for respondent No. 4 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent No. 9 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the National Convenor of an organization working for the welfare and uptiftment of the Shia Muslim community.

He submits that several representations were submitted to the respondent authorities by the petitioner seeking various developmental measures, welfare schemes, establishment of institutions, and other facilities for the benefit of the community. He submits that despite submission of multiple representations on different dates, the respondent authorities have failed to take any action or pass any orders thereon He submits that such of the constitutional and violative inaction is arbitrary' unreasonable' Constitution of 14 and 21 of the under Articles guarantees enshrined justice' being contrary to the principies of natural India, apart from that hearing' this Court observed is taken up for 4. When the matter capacity' in their individual been arrayed No'5 to 8 have respondents the the Writ Petition against to withdraw therefore' advised The Court, and capacity individuat as they are shown in respondents aforesaid Recording a memo' petitioner hled for the learned counsel accordingly.

against as withdrawn is dismissed Lhe writ Petition memo, the said for survives now Wrtt Petition the Thus 5 to S Nos' ' respondent 9 ' and 1 to 4 Nos' respondent against on\Y consdefairon 1 /=Y l 5. Without going into the merits of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner is limited to non- consideration of his representations by the competent authoriries. 6. It is a settled principle of law that when a representation is made to a competent authority, such authority is required to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable period. Inaction on the part of the authorities in considering such representations would give rise to a legitimate grievance. 7. In the present case, the pelitioner has placed on record copies of representations submitted on various dates.

In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the concerned respondents to consider and dispose of the said representations in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: l. Respondent Nos. I to 4 and 9 shall consider the representations submitted by the pedtioner dated t8. 12. 2025, 30. 12. 2025, 08. 01. 2026, 20. o1. 2026, 13. 02. 2026, 06. 03. 2026, and 26. 03. 2026, and shall pass appropriate orders tiereon strictly in accordance with law; ll. Such exercise shall be c within a period week of one from (l) the date erpt of "r. ""1. ,1_'lttld a copy of this order and I r1l It is made clear that. this Court has not expressed aly opinion on the merits of the case. Miscellaneous petitions, il any pending, shall stand closed. No costs HJ[iffi+ltt't+Rll COPY'/ IITRUE /t: L- OFFICER SECTION To "" H ::ff: ' :::,yi::!.! r:j{:'*:::: J:: ". "'l: r*}$;ltm',+*+*'ps':l;r"l.

llu'x 'fffi 1Wff:}Hffi#I*ll ,r lx;"fi:"':,i,1vlJ'; cD coPtes rr. i*o PSK W I CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 2810412026 ... 3-rr.. : ,JIA:. a\\. , {. \ v/. '\ ,, . i- . ) ;' lt ' ),- I 2I APB 2tl26 :,! :. ,71 i-,1 ORDER -lt- '... , 'i-i . WP. No. 14209 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b t

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.