Errabelli Siddharth Rao vs State of Telangana Advocate - GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV — WP/8961/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Status: Admission (Municipal Admn.). Next hearing: 16th April 2026.
CNR: HBHC010187062026
Filing Number
WP/13504/2026
Filing Date
24-Mar-2026
Registration No
WP/8961/2026
Registration Date
24-Mar-2026
Judge
N.v.shravan Kumar
Coram
N.v.shravan Kumar
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
WP ( 28 )
Sub-Category
REVOKING OF BUILDING PERMISSION ( 70 )
Judicial Branch
WRIT Section
Last updated 12-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Errabelli Siddharth Rao
Adv. KAPULURU SAI VARUN
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Telangana Advocate - GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV
-
2.The Regional Director Cum Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration (RDMA)
-
3.The Commissioner
-
4.The Deputy Commissioner
-
5.Sri Gangadhari Amrit Raj,
Adv. ROHAN ALOOR
-
6.Smt. Chintha Suvartha,
Case History
-
16-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
16-Apr-2026
Admission (Municipal Admn.)
N.v.shravan Kumar
-
26-Mar-2026
N.v.shravan KumarView PDF
Summary The Telangana High Court issued a Show Cause Notice Before Admission in Writ Petition No. 8961 of 2026. The Court directed respondents Nos. 5 and 6 to show cause by 16.04.2026 why the petition challenging the State's order allowing a revision petition should not be admitted. Additionally, the Court temporarily restrained respondents 5 and 6 from proceeding with construction on the disputed plot for three weeks, pending further hearing on the merits of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Mar-2026
Admission (Municipal Admn.)
N.v.shravan Kumar
-
25-Mar-2026
N.v.shravan KumarView PDF
-
25-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/8961/2026
Summary The Telangana High Court issued a Show Cause Notice Before Admission in Writ Petition No. 8961 of 2026. The Court directed respondents Nos. 5 and 6 to show cause by 16.04.2026 why the petition challenging the State's order allowing a revision petition should not be admitted. Additionally, the Court temporarily restrained respondents 5 and 6 from proceeding with construction on the disputed plot for three weeks, pending further hearing on the merits of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts