SRI G. RAMAKRISI.INA REDDY, REPRESENTING SRI v. HARIHARAN The Court made the following

5. Sri Bathula Ravi, S/o: Late Chandraiah Bathula, Aged about 40 years, Occupation. Private Employee, Rl/o H.No. 13-3-59, Kabeer Nagar, Near Glass Factory, Motinagar, Hyderabad.

6. Sri Bolla Prabhakar, S/o: Late Laxmaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occupation. Private Employee, R/o H.No. '13-3-60, Kabeer Nagai, Near Glass Factory, Motinagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent 1 to 4 in granting building permission vide file no.31C2011197'll2O19 bearing permit no. 31C2011889912019 dated.30- 12-2019 to respondent no 5 and 6 in respect o, survey no.gT lparl, 88l2lPar1 and 99l2lPart without considering the rep resentrations made by the petitioners herein dated 17-07-2019, 2s-07-2019, o7-01-2a20 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly cancel the building permission by directing the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 to consider the representations made by the petitioner as per law. lA NO:1 OF 2020 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 issue interim directions to the official respondents to suspend/:ancel the building permission granted in favour of respondents 5 and 6 vide file no. 31c2o11197112019 bearing permit no. 3tc2ol111ggl2019 d;rted 30-12-2019 in respect of survey no.B7lParl, Bgl2tparl and ggt2tparL, pursuant to the representations made by the petitioners dated 17-07-2019,2s.07-2019 and 07-01- 2019, pending disposal of Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAyl Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FOR MCPL ADMN UR!3AN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI G. MADHUSUDI-IAN REDDY, SC Counsel for the Respondent No.S AND 6: SRI G. RAMAKRISI.INA REDDY, REPRESENTING SRI V. HARIHARAN The Court made the following: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.3128 of 2020 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri G. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri V. Hariharan appearing for respondent Nos.5 ald 6. Perused the record.

2. Respondent Nos.S and 6 have obtained building permit order, dated 3O.12.2OI9 from respondent No.3 for construction of one stilt+2 upper floors. As per the said building permit order, respondent Nos.S and 6 have to commence the construction on or before 30.06.2027 and complete the same on or before 30.12.2025.

3. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.S and 6 have obtained the said building permit order by way of misrepresentation and suppressing of facts i.e., pendency of the suit i.e., O.S.No.3OO of 2019 filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.5 and 6 seeking perpetual KL,J w.P No.3I28 of 2020 2 \ injunction and learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Prasanthnagar, has granted ir terim order, dated 22.O1.2O2O. Therefore, petitioners have submitted a representation, dated 17.O7.2019 to respondent No.3 with a request to cancel the said building permit orde.'' obtained by respondent Nos.S and 6. Despite re<,eiving and acknowledging the said representation, respcndent No.3 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the sa d inaction of respondent No.3, petitioners filed the present urit petition.

4. W?rereas, Sri G. Ramakrishna Reddy, lea:ned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6, on instructions, would submit that respondent Nos.S arrd 6 eave already completed the construction and there is no sltppression or misrepresentation of facts by respondent Nos.I, and 6 while obtaining building permit order, dated 3O.12.2(t19.

5. Section 7 of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS- bPASS) Act, 2O2O deals with 'approva-l of building KL,J W P No.312a ot 2O2O 3 permissions' and the same is relevant which is extracted as under: (3) (4) (s) (6) (7) (8) (e) (10) (11) The permission issued under deemed clause can be revoked by the commissioner within 2I days from the date of deemed approval if it is found that deemed approval has been obtained by mis-representation of the facts or false statements, and/or against the building rules, regulations and Master Plan land use provisions."

6. Section 45O in Greater Hgderahad Munlcipal Corporation Act, 7955 deols utith Pouter of Commissloner to concel pennission on the ground of material misrepresentation bg applicdnt dnd. the same is releaant which is ertracted as und.er: "If 7t any time afier perrnission to proceed with building or u)ork has been giuen, the \ 4 I(L,J Vr P llo :l128 ot 2O2O -i I Commissioner is satisfied thot such pe rmission uas granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice giuen or inJrmation furnished under section 428 or 433 <,r in the further information if ang, furnished, he mag cancel such permission and ang work done thereunder shall be deemed to haue be.en done tuithout his permis sion. "

7. Rule 12 (aiii) oJ the Telangqna Sto:te Buitding Pennission Approaal and. Self CertiJication Sgstem /TS-bPASS, Rzles, 2O2O (hereinafter referreC to as .the Rules, 2020) says that the permission isr;ued under deemed clause can be revoked by the Competent Authority within 21 days from the date of deerned approval without any notice, if it is found t:lat deemed approval has been obtained by misrepresentirtion of the facts or false statements, and / or against the building rules, regulations and Master plan land use pr ovisions. 7 KL,J W P.No.3l28 ol2020 5

8. RuLe 2 (vi) oJ the Rules, 2O2O deals u'ith 'Competent Authoritg'and it means the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. g. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for GHMC, on instructions, would submit that ttre 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. Therefore, petitioners cannot submit representation, L7.O7.2019 to respondent No'3 with a I I request to revoke the building permit order obtained by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and hle the present writ petition alleging non-consideration of the said representation'

10. In the light of the said discussion, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to submit representation to respondent No'2 along with all the relevant documents with a request to revoke the building permit order obtained by respondent No'5 and 6 and on receipt of the sarne, respondent No.2 shall consider the .f'!l KL,J W.P.No 3l2a of 2O2O 6 same and pass appropriate orders in accordar,ce with la"v by putting the petitioners and respondent Nos-S and 6 on notice and affording them an opportunity of lLearing. He shall complete the entire exercise within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Asa sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closec;. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.AMMAJI UEPUry REGISTRAR . SECTION OFFICER Urb an Development erahad. yderabad Muni crpal C:rporation, Tank The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration a Department Secretariat, The State of Telangana H The Commissioner, The Greater H Bund Road, Hyderabad The Deputy Commissioner, Serilingampally, Greater Hydr:lrabad Municipal Corporation, Circle-21, Serilingampally, Hyderabad. The Zonal Commissioner, Serilingampally, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle-21, Serilingampally, Hyderabad. One CC to Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, SC for Municipal,ty[OPUC] One CC to Sri V. Hariharan, Advocate[OPUC] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 J 4 5 b 7 o I T J ,rKs t_ HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412025 ORDER WP.No.3128 ot 2020 /,; t; |. - , (l( 1 1 iuil 2tl25 D cspa r DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *o W