'1. [/r. Gopal Singh v. against the Principal of Natural Justice and consequen y direct

Petition under Section 1s'l cpc praying that in the ci!.cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to Grant stay of all proceeding against the intimation letter dt. 1s-o7 -2024, issued to 27 Vendors, pending disposal of the main Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THOMAS LLOYD Counsel forRespondent No.1 : Gp FOR MCPLADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for Respondent Nos.2to7 : SRt MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC W.P.No.4099 OF 2 o25 Between: 14-11-445, Machlipura Jinsi Chowraha, B-egum Bazir, Hyderabad.

1. Yl._lute.l1Singh, S/o Mahad_e,v Singh, Age 47 yrs., Occ. Fish Merchant, Rl/o - - -' " 2. Mr. SRINIVAS SINGH, S/o Balaji Singh, Age 45 yrs., Occ Fish Merchant, Rl/o - - '-' ' 3. Mr. NIRANJAN S|NGH, S/o Manna Singh, Age 48 yrs., Occ Business, Fi/o .14_ 14-11-445 Machlipura Jinsi Chorfuraha, Beg-um Bdzar, HyUeraOaO.- 11-636'MachlipuraJinsiChowraha,Be!umBazar,-HyiJerabad. 14-11-112, Kamatipura, Mangal Hart, eegu-m Aa2ar, HirOeiaUaO.

4. Mr. JAI PRAKASH S|NG.H, S/o Mohan Singh, Age 62 yrs., Occ Business R:/o. 5 !t!"s.Bqryq[4 PAt, Wo Late.Raju Singh,.Age 55 yrs., Occ Fish Merchant, - - No 14-11-445 Machlipura Jinsi C6owrah:a, Be-gum eazai, nyOerana;.- ...PETITIONERS AND 1 THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep. by its principal Secretary. Municioat Ad ministration a nd U rba n Developmeni, Secretariat Build ing,'Hya;ia-b:4. 2. THE GREATER HYDERABAD MUNtCtpAL CORPORAT|ON, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMTSSTONER (ESTATE), GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

4. IHF ZONAL COMMtSStONER, Khairtabad Zone, Circte No. 14, GHMC, Hyderabad. I

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Khairtabad Zone, Circle No. 14, GHMC, Hyderabad.

6. THE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, Division No. 14, GHt\IC, Abids, Hyderabad.

7. THE ESTATE OFFICER (cHMC), Tank Bund, 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 Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the stall in the New Fish Market, as arbitrary illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to law and against the Principal of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to allot stalls to the petitioners in parity with 27 allottee to whom the respondents have allotted stalls in the new Market. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Grant Stay of all proceeding against the intimation letter dt. 1510712024, issued to 27 Vendors, pending disposal of the main Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THOMAS LLOYD Counsel for Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for Respondent Nos.2to7 : SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR; SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER a HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.3 29L and 4o99 of 2o25 COMMON oRDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No'1 and Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents. Perused the record'

2. Petitioners in both the writ petitions are eight in number. According to them, they were doing fish business in fish market, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad since last fifty years. Respondents allotted the said shops' In the year 2013, respondents requested them to vacate the said shops for the purpose of construction of new hsh market with an assurarce and promise that they will allot the same to the petitioners and also give preference to the petitioners' Thereafter, respondents have constructed new fish market consisting ol 215 shops, minimum 20 square feet and maximum 25 square feet area. .^u ,y' \ r W.P.Nos. l29l and.1099 o1'2025 I 2

3. They have issued tender notif,rcation for allotment of the said shops. They have allotted only 16 shops in the said tender process. The other.shops are vacant. Petitioners are ready to pay the present rent as paid by the 16 allotees. Instead of keeping the shops vacant, they can allot the same to the petitioners as assured and promised at the time of vacating the said shops.

4. Thus, it is also the specihc contention of the petitioners in both writ petitions that while requesting the petitioners to vacate the subject property, respondent authorities promised them that they will allot the said shops after construction of new fish market. They have also promised that they will glve first preference to the petitioners for allotment of shops after construction of new market. There is specific assertion to the said fact in paragraph Nos.9 and 1O of the writ affidavit, without considering the same and without keeping the said promise, they are not alloting the shops to the petitioners herein. Therefore, they have filed the present writ petition. I KL,J W.P.Nos.3291 and4099 of 2025 -)

5. Whereas, Sri Midde Arrn Kumar, learned Standing Counsei appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents have constructed new fish ma-rket at Begum Bazal consisting of 215 shops with a width 20 to 25 square feet. They have issued tender notification and allotted 16 shops. They have allotted 27 shops to old allottees on the basis of lots. They have not allotted 17 retail shops, 72 cutting shops and 9 dry fish shops. However, respondents are proposing to issue one more tender notification calling application for allotment of the said shops. He further submits that earlier there were only 39 shops. About 50 people doing business unauthorizedly. Respondents are also going to issue fresh tender notification in which event, the petitioners are at liberty to participate in the same.

6. There is no provision to allot the shops basing on lots. Respondents having issrled tender notification for allotments of shops and allotted 16 shops. But, they cannot allot 27 shops to old people on the basis of lots. The said procedure adopted by respondents is not in accordance I I I I W.P.Nos.329l and 4099 of 2025 4 with law. Admittedly shops are vacant. There is no dispute that the petitioners being allottees of the shops and they were doing business SlNCE last several years, they have vacated the said shops on the request made by the respondents for construction of new building. They ready to pay the present rent i.e., 1,3651- (One Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Five only) or 57.5 per square feet. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the petitioners to submit representation to respondent No.3 specihcally narrating the aforesaid facts within one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, respondent No.3 shall consider the same and dispose it of. For any reason, if respondent No.3 is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioners, he shall assign specific reasons, pass an order and communicate copy of the said order to the petitioners in both writ petitions. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioners. , I I / To, KL,J W.P.Nos.3291 and 4099 of 2O25 ) As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending in the Writ Petition sha1l stand closed. , SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Z E N OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipjll Administration and Urban Development, State of T6langana, S6cretariat Building, Hyderabad'

2.TheCommissioner,GreaterHyderabadMunicipalCorporation'TankBund, Hyderabad.

3. The Additional Commissioner, (Estate), GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad' 4. The Zonal Commissioner, Khairtabad Zone, Circle No 14, GHMC, Hyderabad.

5. The Deputy Commissioner, Khairtabad Zone' Circle No 14, GHMC, Hyderabad.

6. The Ofiice of the Executive Engineer, Division No. 14, GHMC' Abids, Hyderabad.

7. The Estate Officer (GHMC), Tank Bund, Hyderabad. B. One CC to SRI THOMAS LLOYD, Advocate. IOPUCI g.TwoCCstoGPFORMCPLADMNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana. [OUT]

10.One CC to SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC. [OPUC]

11.Two CD CoPies BSK GJP , HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 310212025 COMMON ORDER WP.No.3291 & 4099 ot 2025 I I I I CC TODAY ( o \\+- $C1 S tA I€ 7 o .{t 1 9 IEB ?$z5 t oEsrr,tct r€ o DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS /4 1-z FZTtt