1 . Mohd, Maqbool Ahmed v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the lmpugned Revocation Lefter No.440590icHMC/1696112024, dt.3Ot1Ol2OZ4, issued by Respondent No.3 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Section 450 and 630 of GHMC Act, 1955, besides violation of Section 7 (10) and 7 (11)ot TS b-PASS Act.2020. 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 suspend the operation of the lmpugned Revocation letter No.440590/GHMCi16961l2O24, dt.3Ot't012024, issued by Respondent No.3 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.JAYAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH, SC FOR GHMC Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI MOHD. HABEEBUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF tNDtA The Court made the following: ORDER - THE, HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSI{MAN WRIT PETITION No.4t76 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Raparlhi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3, leamed Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing for 4n'' respondent, Sri Mohd. Habeebuddin, learned counsel for 5'h respondent and Sri Cadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for 6'h respondent.

2. Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition challenging the revocation letter dated 30.10.2024 issued by 3'd respondent revoking the building permit order dated 09.10.2024 obtained by them.

3. It is the specific contention of petitioners that 3'd respondent being Deputy Commissioner has no power or authority tbr revoking the building permit order obtained by thenr. 2 KL. J W P.No.4l76 of2025

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 fairly submit that 3'd respondent has no power to revoke the building permit order. It is the Commissioner who is having power to revoke the building permit order.

5. Perusal of the building permit order dated 09.10.2024 would reveal that petitioners have obtained building permit order under TG-bPASS on uploading all the relevant documents by way of selt--declaration and self-certification.

6. As pel Section 7(11) ol' the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-bPASS) Act. 2020 (for shorr 'TS-bPASS Act, 2020,), if there is any rn is representatio n/s uppress ion of facts or any false statement made by the applicant, it is the Commissioner, GHMC, who has power to revoke the building permit order. 7 Thereflrre, 3'd respondent has no power or authority to issue revocation letter dated 30.10.2024 revoking the building permit order obtained by petitioners. [n this regard, it is relevant to notc the l'ollowing provisions of law. 3 (1, J W P No 4176 oi 2025

8. Section 7(11) of TS-bPASS Acq 2020, deals with approval o1'building permissions. The same is relevant and is extracted as under: "The perrnission issued under deerned clause can be revoked by the commissioner within 2 I days frorn the date ol deemed approval if it is found that deemed approval has been obtained by nris-representation of the facts or false statements, and,/or against the building rules, regulations and Master Plan land use provisions."

9. Section 450 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, I 955, deals with the power of Commissioner to cancel permission on the ground of material misrepresentation by applicant. The same is relevant and is extracted as under: "lf at any time aiter pennission to proceed with any building or work has been given, the Commissioner is satisfted that such pennission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent staternent contained in the notice given or infonnation fumished under section 428 or 433 or in the further infonnation if any, fumished, he may cancel such permission and any work done thereunder shall be deerned to have been done without his permission." --./ 4 KL, J w-P.No.4176 of 2025

10. Rule 12(vii) of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self-certification System (TS-bPASS) Rules, 2020 (for short 'the Rules, 2020'), says that the permission issired under deemed clause can be revoked by the Competent Authority r,r,ithin 2l days fiom the date of deemed approval without any' notice, if it is found that deemed approval has been obtained by misrepresentation of the facts or false statements, arrd/or against the building rules, regulations and Master Plan land use provlslons. I l. Rule 2(vi) of the Rules, 2020, deals with 'Competent Authority' which means the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.

12. In the light of the above, without going into the merits or demerits ol the case, the irnpugned revocation letter dated

30.10.2024 issued by 3'd respondent is set aside and the matter is remande<l back to 2nd respondent, Commissioner, GHMC, to initiate fiesh action in accordallce with the provisions of Creater Hr,,derabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, bY issuing show cause notice to petitioners and granting seven (7) Y 5 KL, J w.P No.4r76 df2O2s days' time to submit explanation. On receipt of the said show cause notice, petitioners shall submit explanation within such time. Thereafter,2"d respondent shall consider the same and pass orders afresh in accordance with the said Act by putting petitioners and 5'r' respondent on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. He shall complete the said action within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioners and 5'r' respondent are directed not to proceed with further construction till then.

13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD T REGISTRAR ASSI E TION OFFICER To, \ "l . The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, TS.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad, TS - 500063.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.9, Charminar, GHMC, Hyderabad, TS' 4. The Station House Officer, Charminar Police Station, Hyedrabad, TS. 5. The conservation Assistant, Archaeological survey of lndia, charminar Sub- Circle, Charminar, HYderabad, T.S.

6. One CC to SRI CH.JAYAKRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI MOHD. HABEEBUDDIN, Advocate [OPUC] B. One CC to SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH. SC FOR GHMC IOPUCI r

9. One CC to SRt OOrl pp4lzEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOL|C|TOR GEN. OF tNDtA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad tOpUCI 'l0.Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] / '1 1. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

12.Two CD Copies BSR GJP q ) HIGH COURT DATED: 0610312025 \ ORDER WP.No.4176 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS I 1 tlL SfA, e 1 I lqAll 2[?5 ( ( I \ t o t I t)EspatcHLrl .l @ s d.r