Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 36 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 59Nominal Index S.P. Kasim Peera v. State of Telangana & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 36Sri Azmeera Kailas v. State of Telangana & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 37CH. Muralidhar v. State of Telangana & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 38Justice G. Sri Devi v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 39Jangati Vijay v. State of Telangana...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 36 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 59
Nominal Index
S.P. Kasim Peera v. State of Telangana & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 36
Sri Azmeera Kailas v. State of Telangana & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 37
CH. Muralidhar v. State of Telangana & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 38
Justice G. Sri Devi v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 39
Jangati Vijay v. State of Telangana & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 40
Gade Ramana Reddy v. State of Telangana & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 41
Rayapudi Siva Kumari & Ors. v. Nimmagadda Darahasa Lahari & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 42
Pawan Khera v/s The State of Telangana, 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 43
Shatabdi Manna v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 44
A. Sudhakar Reddy v. V. Ranganath 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 45
Balakrishna Mahadeo Tayade v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 46
Mukka Laxmi Bai M Lachavva v Neeraja Now and others 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 47
Telangana Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 48
Late Padmashree Dr. B.S. Choubey Memorial Trust & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 49
The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. M/s. B. Ram Reddy Infra & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 50
Sri. Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao vs. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 51
Salman Mahmood v. State of Telangana & others 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 52
V. Anil Kumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 53
Sanjay Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 54
The Singareni Collieries Company Limited & Ors. v. Madurakavi Kistaiah & Anr. and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 55
Dr. M & another v. Union of India & another 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 56
The Singareni Collieries Company Limited & Ors. v. Madurakavi Kistaiah & Anr. and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 55
Dr. M & another v. Union of India & another 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 56
L.S. Chowhan v. Union of India & 9 others 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 57
Jagannath v. The Registrar (Administration), High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad & another 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 58
Ravi & another v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 59
Case Title: S.P. Kasim Peera v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 36
The Telangana High Court has held that posts of Police Constable, Head Constable and Assistant Reserve Sub-Inspector in the Special Police Battalions are State cadre posts governed under Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975.
It further held that promotions to such non-ministerial posts cannot be governed by battalion-wise (local) seniority under the Andhra Pradesh Police (Special Police Battalions) Subordinate Service Rules1997.
Case Title: Sri Azmeera Kailas v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 37
The Telangana High Court refused to quash disproportionate assets case against a public servant, holding that mere delay in grant of sanction by itself is not enough to abort a corruption case.
This, when the Anti-Corruption Bureau had consistently pursued sanction and the accused had not invoked available remedies at the relevant time.
Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Rajmohan v CBI (2023) where it was held that that the sanctioning authority is required to grant sanction within 3 months along with an additional period of 1 month and upon expiry the complainant, accused or victim is entitled to approach the appropriate Writ Court to seek appropriate remedies, Justice Juvvadi Sridevi observed:
"In the instant case, the petitioner failed to challenge the legality of the delay, neither before the trial Court nor before the High Court to seek necessary directions. This inaction constitutes a neglect of the remedy explicitly made available under law and a failure to utilize the statutory and judicial safeguards designed to address such delays. While the judgment in Vijay Rajmohan's case was expressly relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, no attempt was made to invoke the remedies available, thereby undermining the petitioner's reliance on the delay in granting sanction. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, mere non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of granting sanction within four (4) months cannot, by itself, constitute a ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. The delay, in the absence of any other substantive illegality, does not entitle the petitioner to the relief claimed.”
Case Title: CH. Muralidhar v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 38
Holding that a college cannot retain a student's original academic certificates as a means of enforcing any monetary claim, the Telangana High Court has directed a private engineering college to forthwith return the original certificates of a student who had discontinued his B.Tech. course.
The court was hearing an engineering student's plea who had a quarrel with certain senior students wherein the petitioner alleged he was physically attacked by his seniors; subsequently one of the senior students had committed suicide pursuant to which a case was lodged against the petitioner and after which he had discontinued his studies.
Telangana High Court Directs Old Pension Scheme Benefits For Retired HC Judge Within 8 Weeks
Case Title: Justice G. Sri Devi v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 39
The Telangana High Court has asked the concerned authorities to expeditiously implement benefits of old pension scheme entitlement to retired High Court judge Justice G Sri Devi within 8 weeks.
In doing so the court disposed of the judge's plea after noting the submission of the authorities that they had granted sanction to her entitlement to pension under the Old Pension Scheme.
A Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda observed:
“The learned ASGI, assisted by the learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General, today produced order dated 13.03.2026 issued to the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Department of Justice), New Delhi granting approval and sanction so far as the pension payable to the petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme is 5 concerned and also granting calculation of pension which the petitioner would be entitled for, including all the arrears the petitioner would be entitled for from the date of her superannuation till date. The learned ASGI further submitted that since the present order from the office of the Accountant General had been issued by speed post on 13.03.2026, it is only a matter of time for the department to actually implement the same and in all probability, the same would be executed at the earliest and that considering the claim of the petitioner, it would expedited on priority basis.”
Case Title: Jangati Vijay v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 40
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that police officers have no power to detain or seize vehicles on the ground that the person driving was found in an intoxicated condition, and in case no one other than the intoxicated driver is there the police must inform the nearest relative or friend to take back the custody of the vehicle.
Justice E.V. Venugopal in his order referred to a coordinate bench's decision in a 2021 petition (W.P. No.1647 of 2021) where detailed guidelines were passed on how the police must deal with vehicles involved in drunk driving cases.
Case Title: Gade Ramana Reddy v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 41
The Telangana High Court dismissed a PIL challenging ward-wise reservation notifications issued for ' 2nd Ordinary Elections to Municipalities and Municipal Corporations 2026', holding that the allegation that reservation in several municipalities ranged between 70% and 90% was not backed by “comprehensive or verified data.”
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin observed:
"It is to be noted that the foundation of the present case rests upon the assertion that reservation in several municipalities ranges between 70% and 90% However, upon examination of the very District Gazette Notifications annexed by the petitioner, the data does not substantiate the sweeping allegation in the manner projected. The petitioner has not furnished a comprehensive tabulation of all municipalities to support the generalized claim. When the factual premise itself racks precision and demonstrable support, the claim of large-scale public injury becomes tenuous"
Telangana High Court Upholds Order Directing Inquiry Into 'Forged' Signatures On Vakalatnama
Case Title: Rayapudi Siva Kumari & Ors. v. Nimmagadda Darahasa Lahari & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 42
The Telangana High Court has upheld a single judge's order directing inquiry under Section 340 CrPC after finding a prima facie case that signatures of various flat-owners on the Vakalatnama filed in the writ petition–seeking demolition of alleged illegal construction, had been forged.
Section 340 CrPC allows a Court to deal with offences affecting the administration of justice such as perjury, when such offences have been committed in relation to proceedings before the Court. The provision mandates a prior complaint and allows the Court to conduct a preliminary inquiry and record a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into such an offence.
Case Title: Pawan Khera v/s The State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 43
The Telangana High Court on Friday (April 10) granted anticipatory bail for one week to Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR filed by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, amid allegations related to her holding multiple passports.
Justice K Sujana while pronouncing the order said, "The petitioner is granted time time for one week to file an application before the concerned court...relief to petitioner for one week with conditions".
Case Title: Shatabdi Manna v. State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 44
Granting bail to a woman accused in an NDPS case involving alleged seizure of 63 grams of contraband, the Telangana High Court held that delay in producing an accused before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours of arrest would violate Article 22(2) of the Constitution, and that such illegality cannot be cured by a later remand order.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sujana observed:
“As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), that when the time of arrest and production of the accused before the Magistrate is considered and the production is beyond 24 hours, such detention would be violative of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, and the subsequent remand would not cure the illegality, and the accused would be entitled to be released on that ground. In view of the above settled legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner…”
Case Title: A. Sudhakar Reddy v. V. Ranganath
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 45
The Telangana High Court has held the Commissioner of Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) guilty of contempt in regard to an earlier order wherein the body was permitted to undertake pre-monsoon work without affecting a party's interest over a disputed land area.
The court found that the body had created structures on the land in question including redevelopment of a lake, and directed it to remove all signages, structures and markers indicating HYDRAA's ownership or control over the land.
Case Title: Balakrishna Mahadeo Tayade v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 46
The Telangana High Court has upheld the removal of a CRPF cook from service on charges of contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, holding that the departmental authorities had acted on sufficient material and that the petitioner had been given adequate opportunity in the enquiry.
Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao observed:
“The authorities finally came to a conclusion that the petitioner has committed grave misconduct which attracts the provision u/s 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949, r/w Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. It is not like all other departments, it is a disciplinary Force; each and every small mistake is taken seriously. At this stage, when the first wife, along with her complaint, has produced the marriage certificate, wedding invitation card, and photographs, these pieces of evidence cannot be brushed aside or ignored.”
Case Title: Mukka Laxmi Bai M Lachavva v Neeraja Now and others
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 47
The Telangana High Court has held that a widow's right to claim compensation for the death of her husband in a motor accident does not stand extinguished merely because she remarried during the pendency of the claim proceedings.
The court was hearing a woman's plea challenging a portion of the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Tribunal to her daughter-in-law (who had eventually remarried), on account of her son's death in an accident.
Case Title: Telangana Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 48
The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of Guideline No.14 of Central Pollution Control Board's (CPCB) Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2025 and the consequential Telangana Pollution Control Board (TGPCB) circular adopting a “per bed per day” user-charge model for bedded hospitals.
In doing so the court held that the classification between bedded and non-bedded healthcare facilities is founded on an intelligible differentia and bears a rational nexus with the object of efficient and sustainable biomedical waste management.
Payment Of Cheque Amount Before First Hearing Warrants Quashing Of NI Act Case: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Late Padmashree Dr. B.S. Choubey Memorial Trust & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 49
The Telangana High Court has quashed three cheque dishonour cases against a trust and its office-bearers, observing that the trust had paid the entire cheque amount before the first date of hearing and so continuation of the prosecutions would amount to abuse of process of law.
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada observed:
“It is pertinent to observe in this regard that the objective of the N.I. Act is to safeguard the interest of the business community, where under several transactions occur by giving and taking cheques and in case of their default in payment, the party who acts upon the said promise of payment should not be put to loss. In the present case, admittedly, the amounts covered under the cheques are already paid. The only contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 is with regard to payment of interest/fine/ compensation".
Case Name: The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. M/s. B. Ram Reddy Infra & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 50
The Telangana High Court has held that in commercial suits, the 120-day period for filing defendant's written statement under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) begins from the date of service of summons along with the plaint, and not from the later date when annexed documents are furnished to the defendant.
Holding that the Commercial Court had rightly forfeited the defendants' right to file written statements after expiry of the statutory period, a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar observed:
“The discussion in the above paragraphs leads us to the inevitable view that the amended second proviso to Order V Rule 1 and the amended proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 read with Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC cast a mandate on the defendant to file its Written Statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on that defendant and thereafter within 90 days (i.e., a total of 120 days) from the date of service of summons. The gates stand closed after the period of 120 days since the right to file a Written Statement stands forfeited. The Court is also divested of its power to extend the time beyond 120 days for filing of the Written Statement for suits involving a commercial dispute.
Case Title: Sri. Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao vs. State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 51
The Telangana High Court on Wednesday (April 22) partly allowed pleas filed by former chief minister and BRS head K Chandrashekar Rao, former irrigation minister T. Harish Rao and others challenging the Inquiry Commission Report over alleged irregularities into the Kaleshwaram project.
In doing so the court held that those findings against the petitioners which have been rendered in violation of safeguards provided under Section 8(B) of Commissions of Inquiry Act, shall not be acted upon. For context, Section 8B mandates that notice be issued to any individual, likely to be affected by the findings on the report, documents be served on them and they be given a chance to defend themselves and cross-examine the witnesses. The petitioners herein are K Chandrashekar Rao(KCR) , T. Harish Rao (THR) and retired IAS officer Shailendra Kumar Joshi as well as IAS officer Smita Sabharwal serving in Telangana.
Case Title: Salman Mahmood v. State of Telangana & others
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 52
The Telangana High Court has held that a postgraduate medical student who fails even one theory paper cannot seek permission to re-appear only in that paper, and must instead re-appear for all four theory papers along with practical/clinical and viva voce examinations, in terms of the regulatory scheme governing PG medical education.
Referring to the provisions of Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2023, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed:
“The regulatory framework, as placed on record, clearly establishes that the Post Graduate medical examination is a composite and integrated assessment consisting of multiple components, namely theory (four papers), practical/clinical and viva voce, and that each of these components constitutes a 'head of passing'… Once a candidate fails to meet the prescribed minimum in any one component, the result is declared as 'failed', and the candidate is required to undergo the process of re-assessment in accordance with the regulatory scheme.”
Case Title: V. Anil Kumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. and connected matters
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 53
The Telangana High Court has said that distance education degrees obtained by students through study centres outside the university's jurisdiction are not valid.
In doing so the court upheld the rejection of candidates seeking appointment as Librarian under a government notification, who had obtained Masters in Library Science through distance education from Acharya Nagarjuna University–the jurisdiction of which was confined to Andhra Pradesh, but via study centres located in Telangana.
Case Title: Sanjay Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 54
The Telangana High Court has held that a single-member Bench of the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA can validly pass orders confirming provisional attachment and permitting retention of seized material.
In doing so, it held that at that stage the standard is only one of prima facie satisfaction on the basis of material on record, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Title: The Singareni Collieries Company Limited & Ors. v. Madurakavi Kistaiah & Anr. and connected matters
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 55
The Telangana High Court has held that specific, measurable and permanent disabilities arising from injury or disease cannot be pushed into the residual category of “general physical debility” (a state of weakness or infirmity) under Clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA)-VI.
In doing so the court granted relief to five medically invalidated Singareni workers and held that they must be treated under Clause 9.4.0(i), which carries entitlement to dependent employment. Clause 9.4.0(i) grants employment to one dependent of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place.
Case Title: Dr. M & another v. Union of India & another
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 56
The Telangana High Court granted relief to a married woman suffering from Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) [missing uterus and ovaries], denied an eligibility certificate for surrogacy on the ground that her cytogenetic report showed a '46 XY karyotype' disqualifying her under the relevant rules.
In doing so the court said that denying her an opportunity for surrogacy on ground of her not being a "perfect woman" in against the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
Case title: L.S. Chowhan v. Union of India & 9 others
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 57
The Telangana High Court has held that non-issuance of an integrity certificate, though a procedural lapse, does not by itself vitiate an IPS promotion process under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations.
In doing so the court noted that the petitioner a State Police Service officer who had applied for promotion to the IPS, was independently assessed by the Selection Committee on comparative merit and had graded him lower than the officers ultimately included in the Select List.
Case title: Jagannath v. The Registrar (Administration), High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad & another
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 58
The Telangana High Court has held that a court employee who pursued a regular three-year LL.B. course without prior permission cannot later seek ratification of that degree for entry in his service register, particularly after his earlier writ petition seeking the same relief had been withdrawn without liberty to re-agitate the issue.
A Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao observed that the petitioner, having once withdrawn an earlier writ petition without seeking liberty, was “estopped” from approaching the authorities again for the same relief.
Case Title: Ravi & another v. Union of India
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 59
The Telangana High Court has held that an assertion by the Railways that a deceased passenger probably committed suicide is not enough to deny compensation to the family under Section 124-A of the Railways Act 1989 in absence of any proof.
The court further said that once claimants place material showing that the victim was travelling on a valid ticket and died in an accidental fall, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove otherwise.