1. Mohd. Khaja Pasha v. 1. The State of Telangana

2. The Commissioner of Meerpet, tvlunicipality, Meetpet, Ranga Reddy District. 3. M/s Hanuman Furnitures, rep. by its-partner Gudimala Rambabu, at Plot NO. 18, 19, and 20, Shakti Nagar, ndar TKR Kaman, Jillalguda, Hyderabad. 4. Smt. Vasumathi, Wo Ranga Reddy 10 & 20, Sri Sai Complex inner Ring Road, NearTKR Kaman, Jillelguda, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the ConstitLrtion of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the impugned proceeding vide Proc. NO' G1/916/TPS-MMCI2O24 dated. 2710112O25 issued by the r:espondent NO. 2 is illegal arbitrary, liable to be set-aside. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent NO. 2 to restrain from demolition of the pan shop of the petitioners situated at on the Northwest corner of Plot No '18, 19, and 20 Shakthi Nagar, near TKR Kaman, Jillalguda, Hyderabad 500079, bounded by North. Road, South. Property of the R 3, East. Property of Respondent NO 3, West' Neighbour's property, pending disposal of the main writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SYED KAREEMUDDIN counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI SiNGIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: - - - - Counsel for the Respondent No-4: SRI V. MANOJ The Court made the following: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.5O57 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Syed Kareemuddin, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Singireddy Ravinder Reddy, learned stalding counsel appearing for 2"d respondent, Sri V. Manoj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the record.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

27.O1.2025 of 2'd respondent. Vide the aforesaid order,

2.d respondent directed the petitioner to remove the unauthorized pan shop.

3. Petitioners are claiming that they are lease holders of pan shop. They have obtained the said propertSr on lease from 3'd respondent. They are running the pan shop. Even then, 2"d respondent tried to demolish the same and dispossess the petitioners from the said pan shop without following due procedure laid down under the law. Challenging the said action of 2'd respondent KL,J w.P.No.so57 0t 2025 2 petitioners liled W.P.No.31592 of 2024. Vide order dated

26.1I.2024 this Court disposed of the writ petition directing 2"d respondent to consider the said aspects mentioned in the said order including the report of I Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court and to take action against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law by putting respondent Nos.3 and 4 on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing and he f. ':, sha11 complete the said exercise as expeditiously AS possible preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date ofreceipt copy ofthe said order.

4. In compliance with the said order, 2"d respondent vide impugned order dated 27.01.2025 directed the petitioner to remove the said pan shop.

5. Petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the said order contending that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are playing fraud, there is no public road abetting to this pan shop, there are big size sign boards which the 2"d respondent is not removing, impugned order is passed to KL,J w.P.No.5057 of2025 --) defeat the impugned order granted in favour of the petitioners in O.S.No.695 of 2023 etc.

6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 would reveal that in complialce with the order dated

26.1t.2O24 in W.P.No.31592 of 2024, 2"d respondent has conducted hearing on 1"7.12.2024, petitioners have submitted written submissions dated 17.12.2024. The said order was passed on the complaint lodged by 4* respondent. There is consideration of the aforesaid order dated 18.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.367 of 2023 in O.S.No.695 of 2023.

7. The impugned order dated 27.01,.2025 is an appealable order in terms of Section 252 (1) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. The petitioners filed the present writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal. It is not the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 ) :: KL,J W.P.No.5O57 of2025 4 to maintain the present writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal.

8. In the light of the same, the petitioners herein are not entitled for any relief; much less the relief sought in the present writ petition and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 252 (l) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 201.9. There sha-Il be no order as to costs.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SDi-MoHD. lstrfiAlL TANT REGISTRAR ION OFFICE R To, TOPUCI

1. One CC to SRI SYED KAREEMUDDIN' Advocate{OPUCI 2 ONC CC tO SRI SINGIRfb.;.ifrXVIft.DEii REDOV' SC TOi MUNICIPALITY : 5n"-ct to sRl V. NnANoJ. Advocate IOPUC]- -.^ i i'l']" d;.i" ci Fon rtrur'lrCipAL AoiutrutsrnnrloN & URBAN - DEvilod"l\4Ei{r, riigh cb,'t iotin" state of relansana' [oUT] 5. Two CD CoPies BN BS w -+ f-a TI HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 , ORDER WP.No.SO57 ot 2025 uE SIA I€: 1 o ) 1E l(r,'r 2[25 * Dp ..!^t f-! :i t t > ? DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,qfd 4 tZ- \ ( -<-^6 .A>to'