Sri Sripada Krishnanurthy Sastri vs The State Ibf Andhra Pradesh Advocate - GP FOR HOME — WP/15415/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: APHC010291912026

Filing Number

WP/23310/2026

Filing Date

15-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP/15415/2026

Registration Date

15-Jun-2026

Judge

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

Coram

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

HOME DEPARTMENT (MISC.MATTERS) ( 22 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sri Sripada Krishnanurthy Sastri

    Adv. KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments,AP Region.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State Ibf Andhra Pradesh Advocate - GP FOR HOME

  2. 2.The Superintendent of Police

  3. 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police

  4. 4.The Station House Officer

  5. 5.Mandapaka China Kameswara Rao

  6. 6.Mandapaka Venkatapathi

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    Maheswara Rao KuncheamView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/15415/2026 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh adjourned the writ petition filed by Sri Sripada Krishnanurthy Sastri regarding alleged illegal activities on temple properties. The court issued notice to unofficial respondents (returnable in two weeks) and directed the 3rd respondent (Deputy Superintendent of Police) to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit addressing the petitioner's allegations of violations despite earlier status quo orders. The matter was listed for hearing after four weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Jun-2026

    Admission (Home)

    Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

  4. 15-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/15415/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/15415/2026 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh adjourned the writ petition filed by Sri Sripada Krishnanurthy Sastri regarding alleged illegal activities on temple properties. The court issued notice to unofficial respondents (returnable in two weeks) and directed the 3rd respondent (Deputy Superintendent of Police) to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit addressing the petitioner's allegations of violations despite earlier status quo orders. The matter was listed for hearing after four weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case