T. Dhangopal Rao v. The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
- Bench
- P SAM KOSHY, NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, P SAM I OSHY
Provisions considered
Judgment
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal Prefened Against the Order Dated 0910112026 in l.A No. 5 o'f 2025 in WP.No 38968 of 2025on the file of the High Court. Between: T. Dhangopal Rao, S/o. T.Y. Rao, aged about 54 years, Occ Public Interest Social Activist, Rl/o. 20-1-696, Shivnagar, Bahadurpura Post Office, Hyderabad-500064.Telangana ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN PERSON AND
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, GAD, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Hyderabad
The Union of lnida, Rep by its Secretary, Home Affairs, North Block, Qhanikyapuri, New Delhi-1 10001
Union Public Service Commission, Rep by its Secretary. Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road. New Delhi-1 10068
Sri. B. Shivadhar Reddy, lPS, Director General of Police (Coordination) -cum Director General of Police, HoPF. (FAC),. O/O. The Director General of Police, Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad. lA NO: 1 OF 2026 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned appointment order of Respondent No.4 vide G.O.Rt.No.'l339 dated 26.09.2025 vide lA.No.S of 2O25 in WP.No.38968 of 2025 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. T. DHANGOPAL (PARTY-IN-PERSON) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&3: GP FOR SERVICES ll Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, Counsel for the Respondent No.4:-- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT DY.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STAIE OF T]J I,ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM I.OSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSI]{:; RAO NANDTKONDA W.A.No.133 OF 2026
06.02.2026 Between: T.Dhangopal Rao ..Appellant AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary GAD, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar 'lelangana State Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble SrL.lustice P-Sam Koshy) Respondents The appellant, who appears as party-in-person. ,ubmits that he does not want to press the writ appeal as of now r rd prays for withdrawal of the same
2. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands di missed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-V.KAVITHA ----- C EPUTY REGIST N \\ \ SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . One CC to SRl. T. DHANGOPAL (PARTY-IN-PERSO\ ) [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FORSERVICES l[ , High Court for the s tateof Telangana toUI t I 3 One CC to SRt. N. BHUJANGA RAO, DY.SOL|C|TOR GENERAL OF tNDtA 4. Two CD Copies [oPUC] BM \q< HIGH COURT DATED:0610212026 \ \ F o o * .\ /^ JUDGMENT WA.No.133 of 2026 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS a .rP<* t:HTi. s c \l*,: j I [[8 2r, 11 1 il- 1,: r*'tt'' :!t:::::''1,7 :&., ,.#.--
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.