High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 09 TEL CK 4048

Saniya Sulthana vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

Telangana High Court, Hyderabad · Decided on 23 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Aparesh Kumar Singh, C.J · Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No.32090 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 239 words

ORDER:

Mr. D.S. Kishan, learned counsel appears for the petitioner. Mr. T. Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, appears for respondent No.2.

2.

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while submitting the online application, due to lack of awareness, the petitioner did not select Category-C (NRI) option, and as such, in her online application, it reflected as “Claiming NRI: NO”. He submits that the petitioner, on coming to know about the same, preferred a representation before respondent No.2-University on 21.09.2026 to permit her to participate in the counselling process under the NRI category, but the same has not yet been considered. He further submitted that respondent No.2-University be directed to decide the said representation in a time bound manner.

4.

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-University submitted that the petitioner’s representation shall be dealt with by respondent No.2-University in accordance with law.

5.

Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2-University to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 21.09.2026 as per the grounds taken in it and in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned order before the next counselling. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

__________________________________