Smt. Bijinepalli Roopa vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 258 Tel

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

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

WRIT PETITION No.9643 OF 2026

Date: 01.04.2026

plp