R. Devraj vs State of Telangana Advocate - GP FOR SPORTS — WP/6598/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
CNR: HBHC010132462026
Filing Number
WP/9706/2026
Filing Date
02-Mar-2026
Registration No
WP/6598/2026
Registration Date
02-Mar-2026
Judge
Renuka Yara
Coram
Renuka Yara
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
WP ( 28 )
Sub-Category
SPORTS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
WRIT Section
Last updated 09-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.R. Devraj
Adv. MOHAMMED OMER FAROOQ
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Telangana Advocate - GP FOR SPORTS
-
2.The Hyderabad Cricket Association
Adv. V RAJENDER RAO
-
3.The Hon'ble Supervisory Committee
-
4.Mr. K. Bhanu
-
5.Mr. Amarnath
-
6.Electoral Officer
Case History
-
22-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
22-Jun-2026
For Orders
Renuka Yara
-
08-Jun-2026
Renuka YaraView PDF
-
08-Jun-2026
Renuka YaraView PDF
-
08-Jun-2026
Renuka YaraView PDF
Case Summary: WP/6598/2026 R. Devraj's writ petition challenging his removal as Secretary of the Hyderabad Cricket Association was found maintainable by the court on 08.06.2026. The petitioner disputed whether his prior service as Executive Committee Member (2010-2017) should be counted toward a 9-year tenure limit that allegedly required his removal. The court rejected respondents' argument that alternative remedies (Ombudsman or civil court) existed, noting the Ombudsman was unavailable when the issue arose and elections had already been conducted. The case was adjourned for merit hearing on 22-06-2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
03-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/6598/2026
Case Summary: WP/6598/2026 R. Devraj's writ petition challenging his removal as Secretary of the Hyderabad Cricket Association was found maintainable by the court on 08.06.2026. The petitioner disputed whether his prior service as Executive Committee Member (2010-2017) should be counted toward a 9-year tenure limit that allegedly required his removal. The court rejected respondents' argument that alternative remedies (Ombudsman or civil court) existed, noting the Ombudsman was unavailable when the issue arose and elections had already been conducted. The case was adjourned for merit hearing on 22-06-2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts