Telangana High Court
Smt. Bijinepalli Roopa vs The State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.9643 OF 2026
DATE OF ORDER : 01.04.2026
Between:
1. Smt. Bijinepalli Roopa,
W/o B.Prem Prakash and one other
.. Petitioners
And
1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Information Technology,
Electronics and Communication Department,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat,
Khairtabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State and 7 others
.. Respondents
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
"... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in failing to protect the lives and properties of petitioners No.1 and
2 herein who settled from Andhra Pradesh State in Telangana State for continuing the teaching by the 2nd petitioner to the students by following rules and regulations of the respondents herein by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, Consequently direct the respondents to protect the life and property of the petitioners No.1 and 2 by collecting the taxes legally by the 3rd respondent from the investors for continuing the teaching by the 2nd petitioner to the students in Artificial Intelligence i.e., 2 JAK,J wp_9643_2026 A.I. by following the rules and regulations of the respondent No.1, 2, 6, 7 and 8, and to pass ..."
2. Heard Mr. Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, learned counsel for petitioners, Ms. B.Swapna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Ms. D.Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.6 and 7, Mr. Sriram Polali, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government for respondent No.8 and learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
3. Having perused the entire material on record, it is observed that petitioner claims himself to be an instructor of Artificial Intelligence (AI) subject in his office. That, a few persons have been interfering with the peaceful conduct of classes.
4. When this Court queried learned counsel for petitioners as to how the relief sought for in the writ petition can be granted, learned counsel has sought permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to pursue the remedies available as per law.
5. Permission is accorded.
3 JAK,J wp_9643_2026
6. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 01.04.2026 plp 4 JAK,J wp_9643_2026 334 THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.9643 OF 2026 Date: 01.04.2026 plp