Hyderabad: Taking a stern view of litigants using courts to pursue personal vendettas, Telangana high court has ruled that judicial forums cannot be allowed to become platforms for settling individual scores, warning that such petitions waste valuable court time.The court dismissed a petition filed by a retired govt school headmaster and imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on him for suppressing material facts. Justice EV Venugopal made the observations while hearing a petition filed by P Srinivas, a retired govt school headmaster who had served in Bhainsa, Nirmal district.The court directed that the ₹1 lakh cost be paid to the govt girls’ school for the blind at Malakpet.Terming it a case of suppression of material facts, the court held that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands. The judge also expressed concern over courts being drawn into personal disputes.Srinivas, who worked as headmaster of mandal parishad upper primary school at Pangri in Bhainsa mandal and retired in 2017, had lodged complaints against a former subordinate, Prabhuraj, seeking disciplinary action over alleged instances of indiscipline and negligence in duty. He stated that complaints were submitted on Aug 22, 2022, and Feb 25, 2023, concerning incidents that allegedly occurred in 2016.Alleging inaction on his complaints, Srinivas approached the high court seeking directions to the authorities.Counsel for the petitioner argued that Srinivas had sought action against Prabhuraj for allegedly violating service rules and neglecting his responsibilities during the period they worked together.Opposing the plea, the govt counsel informed the court that an inquiry had already been initiated on the complaints and that the relevant records were under examination. The counsel submitted that additional time was required to complete the process.After hearing both sides and examining the material on record, Justice Venugopal noted that Srinivas retired from service in 2017 but chose to lodge complaints only in 2022, nearly five years later. The court observed that the alleged incidents dated back to 2016 and questioned why no complaint had been made when both individuals were serving in the same institution.The judge further noted that there were mutual complaints between the two individuals and that the petitioner had failed to disclose this significant fact in his affidavit before the court.
