P. Sainath vs B. Susheela Advocate - B BHAGATH SAIN — WA/605/2026

Case under Letters Patent, 1866 Section 15. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HBHC010311682026

Filing Number

WA/22714/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

WA/605/2026

Registration Date

17-Jun-2026

Judge

Aparesh Kumar Singh , G.M. Mohiuddin

Coram

Aparesh Kumar Singh , G.M. Mohiuddin

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

WA ( 27 )

Sub-Category

TO STOP UN AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION ( 50 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Letters Patent, 1866 Section 15

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.P. Sainath

    Adv. M DURGA PRASAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.B. Susheela Advocate - B BHAGATH SAIN

  2. 2.The State of Telangana,

    Adv. GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

  3. 3.The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

  4. 4.The Deputy City Planner,

  5. 5.The Assistant City Planner, / Town Planning Officer

  6. 6.The Station House officer,

    Adv. GP FOR HOME

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 19-Jun-2026

    Aparesh Kumar Singh,g.m. MohiuddinView PDF

    Summary: WA/605/2026 In this Telangana High Court writ appeal dated 19.06.2026, the court allowed an interlocutory application (I.A.2) dispensing with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order. However, I.A.1 was adjourned for the next week due to the absence of the petitioner's counsel during the second round of hearing, despite respondents' counsel being present. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Jun-2026

    For Admission (Fresh Matters)

    Aparesh Kumar Singh , G.M. Mohiuddin

  4. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WA/605/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: WA/605/2026 In this Telangana High Court writ appeal dated 19.06.2026, the court allowed an interlocutory application (I.A.2) dispensing with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order. However, I.A.1 was adjourned for the next week due to the absence of the petitioner's counsel during the second round of hearing, despite respondents' counsel being present. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case