VRR RICE MILL vs The State of Telangana Advocate - GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES — WP/8849/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 24-Mar-2026

CNR: HBHC010183082026

Filing Number

WP/13226/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP/8849/2026

Registration Date

24-Mar-2026

Judge

Surepalli Nanda

Coram

Surepalli Nanda

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

TO COLLECT THE PADDY FOR RABI OF KARIF ( 19 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS

Last updated 20-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VRR RICE MILL

    Adv. K VENUMADHAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Telangana Advocate - GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

  2. 2.The Additional Collector and Ex-Officio Executive Director,

  3. 3.The District Manager,

  4. 4.The Collector (CS),

  5. 5.The District Civil Supplies Officer,

  6. 6.The Commissioner Civil Supplies,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Apr-2026

    Surepalli NandaView PDF

    The Telangana High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Civil Supplies Corporation (respondent No. 2) to consider the rice mill petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2026 within two weeks and pass appropriate orders regarding extension of time to deliver 12,470 quintals of rice. The court also restrained respondents from taking coercive action against the petitioner pending this decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Admission (Civil Supplies)

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/8849/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Telangana High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Civil Supplies Corporation (respondent No. 2) to consider the rice mill petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2026 within two weeks and pass appropriate orders regarding extension of time to deliver 12,470 quintals of rice. The court also restrained respondents from taking coercive action against the petitioner pending this decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case