High Court · 2025

state of Telangana, rep. by its Principal secretary .M.unicipal Administration in? uruan Gr-eiopmerit Department.-secretariat Building Hyderabad Creater Hvderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad' srr Balall Venkateswaia Swamy Temple, Temple Alw-al - O"outv-Commissiondr, Aldat Circle, GHMC Corporation, Alwal Police Road' neir Sri Balaii Venkateswara swamy Temple, Temple Alwal' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders passed by the 3nd respondent in Proceedings Lr No' 4142331GHMC|11631t2O24 Dt. 23-7-2024, in revoking the Permission approved by 2nd respondent as arbitrary' illegal, erroneous and violative of Art. 14,21 and 300 A of the Constitution of lndia and set aside the same' lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the certified copy or the order in proceedings Lr No. 4 1 4233 I GHMC t 1 1 63 1 t 2024 Dt. 23 -7 _2024. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed by the 3nd respondent in proceedings Lr No. 41 4233lGHMcl 1 1631 12024 Dt. 23-7 -2024, in revoking the permission approved by 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. pRAyANKA CHOWDHARY counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGp FoR MUNrcrpAL ADM|NrsrRATroN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRI K. RAVI MAHENDER, S.C. FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.373 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri K. Ravi Mahender, learned. Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.

2. Petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of property bearing Municipal No.V-t6lLl6, on plot No.6, Sy.No.280, situated at Lothkunta under GHMC, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.3448 of 20O0, dated

27.ll.2OOO. He has obtained building permit order, dated O4.O7 .2024 for construction of Stilt for parking + 2 Upper floors. On obtaining Work Commencement Letter, petitioner has commenced the work, strictly in KL,J W.P.No 373 of 2025 : 2 ..at accordance with the said building permit order, dated 04.O7.2024. Respondent No.3 revoked the building permit order, dated 04.07.2024 vid,e revocation letter, dated 23.O7 .2024. Challenging the said impugned revocation letter, dated 23.02.2024 of respondt:nt No.3, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Perusal of the said revocation letter would reveal that respondent No.3 has revoked the said building permit order, dated 04.07 .2024 stating that proposed site is covered under Court Cases vid.e W.p.No .23324 of 2022, O.S.No.1272 of 2014 and O.S.No.149i of 2022. Therefore, said building permit order, d,ated. O4.O7.2024 may not be considered.

4. It is apt to note that petitioner herein has obtained building permit order, dated. O4.O2.2024 und,er TSbpASS on submission of application and all the relevant documents, by serf-certification and serf-decraration. Therefore, the Commissioner has power to conduct post I i I KL,J W.P.No.373 of 2025 3 verification and also the documents, inspect site and if there is any misrepresentation of fact or false statement made by the applicant, h.e can revoke the said building permit order. Inter se disputes, he cannot consider. However, respondent No.3 has no power to issue revocation order.

5. Section 7 of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS_ bPASS) Act, 2O2O deals with approval of building permissions'and the same is relevant which is extracted as under: "7. (1) (2) (3) (4) (s) (6) (7) (8) (e) (10) ... ... ... (11) The permission issued under deemed clause cal be revoked by the commissioner within 21 days from the date of deemed approval if it is found that deemed approval has been obtained by mis- representation of the facts or fa_lse statements, and/ or l i I i KL,J W.P.No.373 of 2025 4 :,t: ,.:i: against the building rules, regulations and Master plan Iand use provisions."

6. Section 450 in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 deals with power of Commissioner to cancel permission on the ground of material misrepresentation by applicant and the same is relevant which is extracted as under: "If at ang time afier permission to proceed. tuith ang buitding or u-tork has been giuen, the Commissioner is satisJied that such permission u)as granted in consequence of ong mateial misrepresentation or fraudulent stotement contoined. in the notice giuen or information fumished under section 42g or 433 or tn the further information if any, furnished-, he may cancel such pennission and ang utork done thereunder shall be deemed to haue been done without his pertnission.,,

7. Rule 72 (aiii) of the Telangqna Sto;te Building Permission Approual and Setf Certilication Sgstem fTS-hPASSi Rules, 2O2O (hereinafter referred to as .the Rules, 2020) says that the permission issuecl under deemed clause can be revoked. by the Competent Authority rvithin 21 days from the date of deemed l I i I I I i : I I I I I i I I i KL,J W.P.No.373 of 2025 5 approval without any notice, if it is found that deemed approval has been obtained by misrepresentation of the facts or false statements., and / or against the building rules, regulations and Master Plan land use provisions.

8. Rule 2 (vi) of the Rules, 2O2O deqls utith 'Competent Authoritg'and it means the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.

9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for GHMC, on instructions, would submit that the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad is the competent authorit5r to revoke the building permit order and there is no delegation of power to the Deputy Commissioner. Delegation of power is impermissible. Therefore, respondent No.3 has no power or authorit5r to issue revocation order. The Commissioner, GHMC is the competent authorit5r to pass revocation orders. I {

10. Viewed from any angle, the impugned revocation order dated 23.07.2024 is liable to be set aside and KL, W.P. No.373 of 2O2S : : '.::. -.:. ,. 6 accordingly it is set aside. However, libertlr is granted to the Commissioner, GHMC to initiate fresh action, strictly in accordance with law procedure laid down under the TSbPASS Act, 2O2O, the TSbpASS Rules, 2O2O and the GHMC Act, 1955. petitioner shall proceed with the construcrion, strictly in accordance with the building permit order, dated 04.O2.2024 and work commencement letter, failing which tiberty is granted to respondent No.3 to take action against the petitioner, in accordance with the proceciure laid down under the GHMC Act, 1955. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, Pln{ng in the Writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI EGISTRAR ASSISTAN sEC N OFFICER |' : I I I , To 1 \ ffiffiffiffi;* HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 ORDER WP.No.373 of 2025 o F TS (4 .$ \tD$ .? F ( J 43rH ,r o Ll. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS i I t ! I I iI O P