Sri Venkateshwara Gorakshini Trust vs State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 672 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sri Venkateshwara Gorakshini Trust vs State Of Telangana on 13 April, 2026

Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy

Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                    AT HYDERABAD

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                WRIT PETITION No.10505 of 2026

                        Dated: 13.04.2026

Between
Sri Venkateshwara Gorakshini Trust

                                                       ...PETITIONER
                                And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
ORDER:

The writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to

declare the action of the respondent No.3 - Special Tribunal,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, in not considering and passing orders in

IA seeking to implead the Commissioner, Endowments Department,

Boggulakunta, Hyderabad, as party to the Revision Petition

No.D1/2499/17, as being, illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Mr. T.S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing

Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Badri

Premnath, learned counsel for respondent No.9, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Government Pleader

for Endowments.

3. Mr. P. Badri Premnath, learned counsel, submitted that

orders in the revision petition have been reserved.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on

08.04.2026 the learned counsel for the respondent No.9 offered to

file vakalat on behalf of respondent No.9 and sought adjournment

and today, it is represented that the revision petition has been

reserved for orders, which demonstrates that the respondent No.3

is in a haste to dispose of the revision petition without affording

reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and without disposing the

implead petition.

5. In the circumstances, interest of justice would be met if

orders are passed in the implead petition before disposal of the

revision petition. However, the respondent No.3 is directed to pass

orders in the implead petition by giving opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner, respondent No.9 and other parties to the revision

and further, subject to the outcome of the orders in the implead

petition, final orders in revision petition may be passed.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J April 13, 2026 Note: Issue CC in two (2) days (B/o) DSK