1. A. Naresh Kumar v. 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 a) lssue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring the resolution No. E1lGEN/ MGFiJanuary/2O2Sl3 dated 06.0'1 .2025 passed by the Mancherial Municipality for demolition of the four roundabout structure i.e., 1) lB Chowrasta 2) Venkateswara Talkies 3) Bellampally Chowrasta and 4) Lakshmi Talkies and reduction in size as arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, and consequently quash the same b) Direct the respondents not to proceed with the proposed demolition- of the four roundabout structures i.e., 1) lB Chowrasta 2) Venkateswara Talkies 3) Bellampally Chowrasta and 4) Lakshmi Talkies and to i *--*.v take all necessary steps to ensure that the structure remains intact c) to consider the representation made to the District collector dated 28 fi.2025 and to take appropriate action. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section Is 1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to issue direction to the respondents not to proceed with the prc posed demolition of the Four roundabout structures and to take all necessary sters to ensure that the structure remains intact. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHUNAP ANVESH KTRAN Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : Gp FOR MCPL ADMI\t URBAN DEV counsel for the Respondents No'3 '35'I"'-Tn [[i#[fi{EDDy, The Court made the following: ORDER t {f* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAIGHMAN WRIT PETITION No.5O17 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri C. Anvesh Kiran, learned'counsel for the petitioners and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Perused the record.

2. Petitioners are four in number. Three of them are present councilors and 4th one is Ex-Chairman of respondent No.3

3. 3'd respondent municipality had conducted meeting on 06.01.2025 and passed certain resolutions including the following resolution: "File no.E 1 /Junctions/ R&B Road/MGF/2025 Subject: Manchryala Municipality Engineering Department-R&B Main Road I.B.As the six Iane road from Chaurasta to Srinivasa Gardev is to be developed, the I.B.Junction, Venkateswara Talkies Junction, Bellampally Junction and Lakshmi Talkies Junction are wide, hence approval to reduce their widths. R&B in Manchiryala Municipality Main Road I'B'A six lane road is to be developed from Chaurasta to KL.J w.P.No 5017 of2025 i$fr!:ifl 2 Srinivasa Garden. I.B. on this road. Junction, Venkateswara Talkies Junction, Bellampall', Junction and Lakshmi Talkies Junction being wide, accidents happen. Therefore, the width of these junctions should be reduced. Therefore, approval to undertake the alrove works is placed before the Hon'lcle Council.". Petitioners hled the present writ petitiol challenging the said resolution, on the following grounds (i) There are no accidents in Adilabad. (ii) The said resolution is without any brrsis. Despite objection by the petitioners, the 3.d respor:,dent council passed the resolution

4. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners have fiied a writ petition vide W.P.No.4569 of 2O2ri challenging other resolutions of the same date wherein 3'd respondent municipa-lity has taken a decision for allctment of a shopping complex. Vide order dated 17.C2.2025, this Court disposed of the said writ petition.

5. Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned stanrling counsel appearing for 3.d respondent has produced written ]. (L,J w-P.No 5017 of 2025 3 instructions of 3.d respondent wherein it is stated that 3'a respondent council meeting was held on 06.01.2025, the attendees of the meeting considered the issues in the 3'd respondent municipality including the accidents. To reduce accidents they have passed certain resolutions including the aforesaid resolution. Out of four petitioners, 3 petitioners participated in the meeting and it was passed with majority of councilors. Petitioners \ \ cannot hle the present writ petition opposing the same. \ \

6. As rightly contended by the learned standing counsel, 3'd respondent municipality has conducted meeting on 06.O1.2025 and making several proposals including the present proposal. It is their specilic contention that to avoid accidents and to end traffic jams in Adilabad municipality, they have passed the resolution. The same was after due deliberations and it is by way of majority. Petitioners cannot challenge the said resolution stating that there a-re no accidents and it is without any basis. Therefore, petitioners herein are I(L,J U.P.No.50l7 of2025 4 not entitled for any relief much less the relief sought in the present writ petition and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the present writ petition s dismissed. There sha-ll be no order as to costs.

8. As a sequel, miscellaleous petitions, if alry, pending in the Writ Petition sha-Il stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. PA Assl t DMANABHA REDDY IITANT REGISTRAR I I !secttott oFFlcER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, MA and UD Department, State ol Telangana, U Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Mancherial District. 3. The Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, Mancherial. 4. One CC to SRI CHUNAP ANVESH KIRAN, Advocate. [Ot'UC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTj

6. Two CD Copies. BSK VF HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 l ORDER WP.No.5017 ot 2025 HE .S l4 Ro ( '') rJ ! I 1fi MJUl'l (s (' * Dr <'I t ,z/' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 2O { [,f