SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17743

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
S. Jeevan Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 15140/2026



##PAGE1##

I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRI T PETI TI ON No.15140 OF 2026

DATE: 05.05.2026

Betw een :

S. Jeevan Reddy

…Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana,

Endowments Department,

Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat

Hyderabad and others

…Respondents

ORDER

Head Sri T. Surya Satish, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Endow ments

appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2

and Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel

for Endow ments appearing on behalf of the

respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking

prayer as under:

##PAGE2##

2

SN,J

W.P.No.15140 of 2026

“to issue a writ, order or direction more

particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus

declaring the inaction of the Respondents in acting on

the representation dated 10.04.2026 and 13.04.2026

made by the Petitioner requesting for modification of

the understanding or extension of time as illegal,

arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the

Constitution of India and to pass such other order(s) as

are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice,

equity and good conscience.”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the

averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner

in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-

i) The petitioner was the successful bidder in the tender

dated 16.06.2023 for selling diyas on the temple premises

for Rs.1,21,11,111/- and was permitted to conduct business

at a designated place. However, the petitioner was not

allotted a permanent shop and was made to operate from a

temporary premises.

ii) Alleging excess pricing, the 3rd respondent sealed the

premises without notice, which was earlier challenged in

W.P. No.14879 of 2024, wherein installment payment was

##PAGE3##

3

SN,J

W.P.No.15140 of 2026

permitted with a direction to allot the shop after first

payment.

iii) Due to installation of an Akhanda Deepam by the 3rd

respondent, the devotees lost interest in purchasing diyas,

resulting in severe financial loss to the petitioner and

making it difficult to comply with the payment schedule.

iv) In that regard, the petitioner submitted

representations dated 10.04.2026 and 13.04.2026

requesting the respondents either to extend the time for

payment or allot an alternative shop/business to mitigate

the losses, however, the respondents failed to consider the

said representations. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

A) The relevant portion of the order of this Court

dated 16.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.14870 of 2024, is

extracted hereunder:

“6. In view of the submissions made by the

both sides, the writ petition is disposed of by directing

the petitioner to deposit the said amounts in three

##PAGE4##

4

SN,J

W.P.No.15140 of 2026

installments within a period of three (3) months from

today i.e., 1st installment on or before 15.01.2026, 2nd

installment on or before 15.02.2026 and 3rd installment

on or before 15.03.2026, as per the notice issued by

the respondent No.2 vide RC.No.BR/1322/2023, dated

15.12.2025, with a condition that if the petitioner fails

to pay the said amounts as per his undertaking before

this Court, the respondent authorities will take

appropriate steps to evict the petitioner from his shop

or cancel his license. Further, the respondents are

directed to allot the shop to the petitioner after

payment of 1st installment. There shall be no order as

to costs.”

DI SCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON:

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner mainly puts-forth the follow ing

submissions:-

i) The petitioner was not in a position to comply with the

directions of this Court dated 16.12.2025 passed in W.P.

No.14870 of 2024 due to subsequent developments i.e.,

installation of an Akhanda Deepam by the 3rd respondent.

ii) At the time of participating in the tender dated

16.06.2023, there was no Akhanda Deepam on the temple

##PAGE5##

5

SN,J

W.P.No.15140 of 2026

hill, however, its

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top