The High Court · 2025

Mr. N. Vishal Sinqh. S/o N Mahaveer Singh Aged about 32 years, Occ: Business, Rto.2:62.t1,lnara Nigir, ca"tiidi,*ti'n.n-"olstrict Tetangana. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER ffi ;lflt:'il l3'3,3ttlii ffiB"?JJ:'ot''"cipar Il:"?;ffi "t"ner' Greater Hvderabad Municipal corporation, Tankbund, The Zonal Commissioner, Serilingampal ly Zone, GHMC, Hyderabad. secretary, Municipar

5. Deputy Commissioner, Serilingampally Circle 20, GHlvlC Corporation' 6. Sri Pasam Amarath Reddy, S/o. Vijay Shekar Reddy. Aged.aqout.34 ' J"rr.. gr.inesJ veternitv Hospital R<iad*Vidavaturu [{andal, Gandavaram' i{Litoie oistrict. Present'R/o. Gachibowli,'Hyderabad' T.Sri.TataKarunakar,S/o.T.Ramachandraiah,-Agedabout5lyears'Occ' Business, R/o Plot uo ii sVCl nroy-rnoii't'la"gar, l'lear UCO Bank Line' Gachibowli R R District. B. Sri. Venu Kotapati, S/o Sri Singaiah Kotapati, Aged about 43 yea.rs' Occ " a;sinuii, Rlo H.No o a9' Mid'dlt,tu Villbge, Sintaruthalapadu Mandal' Bhatia, Prakasam District. g. sri. Attuluri Brahmanaidu, S/o. sri. Ramanarah, Aged abgut, 26 years, occ. " 6irti,iii., n7". Miiricrretipaiem, Budavada' Prakasanr District' '" ;;;;t, o;;. Housewife, il'c riat No 401, Thejo Resrdtrncy' Bandari Layout' l0.Smt.KavithaMamidala,Wo.Sri,Dharm-aVeerG^udunr,Agedabout..44 irlizampet, HYderabad ll.Sri,AmbhavarapuSureshBabu,S/o.Sri-VenkatRedd.l'Aged.32years' Occ: Business, R/o. Basinenipalli post' Nellore ulst' ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT No'1 to 10 Naravana, Sio Sri. K. Somala aged about 37 years' Occ: Business' R/O' ii;'i'?8iC;"0-i-iir l"Jir'iirllio'in'ob'i''seririrrsamallv R'R District 12K H

13.K.Ravi Naik, Sio Srr K Somala aged aboutQT years C'cc: Business' R/o H.No 1-58/1/3 rnu,, lrrs";i.t1.hl#*l; S;'ili"lampallv' R R District' ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT No'12 & 13 IANo: 40F 2025 "r t'" "pltitii"' Petition under Sectlon 15,1 cPC praying.that in the cin;umstances Stated in irtJ Hign-co"t mav be pleased to stay the affidavit f iled rn suppori the order in w.p N. 469'9;i';0ii lri.a o7 012024 includins speakins order No 8e70/Uc/rps/c2olslJP:' iiii "^^i- esosrucripsrc 2otsiPzt2oz4 dated' 20.01 .2o25pending oi'poi'riiinl'wilt nppear in the interest of justice' Counsel for the Appellant: SRI T' SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the ResPondent No'1 : SRI PRAVEEN REPRESE\TS. SRI M.R.S' SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No'2 to 4 SRt G. MADHUSUDH,qN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT - 'rY THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI{A YARA U/RIT APPEAL No.219 of 2o25 JITDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice SujoA Paul)l Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Praveen, learned counsel represents Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.l/writ petitioner and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. With the consent, finally heard

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant Nos.l and 2/respondent Nos. 11 and 14 in the writ petition and respondent Nos- 72 and 13 in the writ petition, who were impleaded as party respondents, have not been put to notice, which is evident from paragraph No.3 of the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, yet the appellants will be satisfied if this appeal is disposed of by directing the oflicial respondents to consider the reply of the appellants and take a decision in accordance with law without getting influenced by any finding given on merits in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4 5 [,earned Standing Counsel for GHMC tras no objection. 2 l,earnecl counsel for resprondent No.1/writ petitioner raised serious objection

6. We are unable to persuade ourse ves about such objection. At the first place, appellants/respondent Nos. 11 and 14 and respondent Nos.12 and 13 in the writ petition, who were impleaded as necessarv parties, were not put to notice and yet, learned counsel for the appellants agreed that even as a consequence of order of learned Single Judge, they are put to notice, they r,r'ill raise all their objections in tire reply and 1et official respondents take decision on its own me:its. There exists no valid reason lor learned counsel for the writ p:titioner to raise eyebrows and objections in a matter of this nature.

7. Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of by directing the officia-l respondents to pass appropriate ordr_.t-s after taking into consideration the reply filed by the appellants herein and respondent Nos. 1 2 and 13 in the writ petition. While passing orders, the official respondents shall decide the matter on merits and shall not be mechanically influenced by .ty finding given in the impugned order by the learned Single Judg,--. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any o.tinion on the . merits of the case. No costs. I I i , I I l v Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also 3 stand closed. /TTRUE COPY// sDl-1. DEP NAGA LAKSHMI REGTSTRAR S TION OFFICER To,

2. 3 4 5 6 7 I The Principal Secretary, Municipal Department' The State of Telangana' ?f;3'3'3'{lxl',syioi%7,031"u", Hvderabad Municipar corporation' rankbund' ***utzu:'w,,m*,'m*g*::***Y:* Two CD CoPies BN +y \ I HIGH COURT DATED:0510312025 JUDGMENT WA.No.219 of 2025 /_-1=:_.::\ ,.7-i';HF- srAr; /\ $ j) ?Tfr * l1 f,i I \ )(:s \r-=-- P,6.TC DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS o\ N.'