High Court · 2025

The state of relangara- Rep by prr secretary lr,4unicipat Administration Secretariat Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad The .Commissioner, Greater Hydi;rabad fVlunicipal Corporation, Low Tank Bund Hyderabad. The Deputy Commissioner, pirgl_e 28 lvlalkajgiri Greater Hyderabad Municipat Corporation, Medchal/lVlalkajgiri Dist The Asst. Town. Planning Circle 28 lValkajgiri Circje, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, IVe dchal/Malkajgiri Di'si Thota Cheeranjeevi,, S/o. Thota Srinivas Rao Age30 years Occ private F_mloyee R/o LIG 20 H No44-141, Apilc coronv Fiist Froor fVourari rVredchar lVlalkajgiri GHMC Hyderabad 500040 Telangana' -Officer, ...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 any writ order or direction one more particularly in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the Respondent No 3 in not considering the representation of petitioners dated 26-09-2024 and not conducting enquiry and not stopping the illegal construction of pent house at H.No 44-1411 Llc -20, APltc corony, Markajgiri circle, GHMC above ord building construction is doing by the R-5 as illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice in the interest of justice and not following the directions of the order in w.P.No 32291 of 2024, consequently direct the respondent authorities to take action against the illegal construction of pent house above at H.No 44-1411 LIG -20, APllc colony, Malkajgiri circre, GHMC above ord buirding construction is doing by the R-5 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in ,-e circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to temporariry direct the Respondent no. 2 to 4 to stop ire(Jar construction of pent house above at H.No 44_141tLtG _20, ApltC Colony, I\latkajgiri Cir"fu, lUf,rrC above ord buirding construction is doing by the R-5 pending disposar of the above writ petition Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. B. SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR MUNIC''AL ADMtN,STRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2to4: SRI G. MADHUS{JDHAN REDDy, counsel for the Respondent No.S: -_ The Court made the following: ORDER sc FoR GHMC l I i i I l I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No. 5402 0F 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr.B.Siva prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. The petitioners are claiming that they are residing in the ground floor of H.Nos.LIG-19 and LIG-1g, H.Nos.44_140 and 44-139, A.P.l.I.C.Colony, Moula Ali, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Respondent No.5 is making construction in fifth floor and it is unauthorised construction. Therefore, they have submitted a representation dated 26.O9.2024 to respondent No.2 with a request to take action against respondent No.5. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondent No.2 did not act upon the same and they are not stopping the construction. Challenging the said inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in considering the representation dated

26.O9.2024, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. ( 2 j rl:l

3. Whereas, Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, on ins,tructions, would submit that respondent No.3 has alreadl, considered the representation dated 26.Og.2024 submitted try petitioner No.2 and show-cause notice dated 27.09.2024 was issued to respondent No.S. Therefore, respondent No.5 has submitted an explanation dated O3. lO .2024 . On con sideration of the sarne, respondent No.3 has passed spea1.:ing order dated

29.tO.2024.

4. Challenging the same, petitioner had fil.ed a writ petition vide W.P.No.3229I of 2024. Yide order dated 19.11.2024, this Court set aside the said speaking order on the ground that respondent No.3 has passed the said speaking order without considering the explanation submitted by respondent No'5 ald without affording al opportunity of hearing and the matter was remanded back to respondent No.3 with a direction to pass order a-fresh by putting rer;pondent No.5 on notice ard affording him an opporturrity of hearing. Respondent No.3 shatl complete the said ex,:rcise within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 3 Subject to outcome of the said order, respondent No.3 is at liberty to take action against respondent No.S, in accordance with 1aw.

5. Learned Standing Counsel, on instruction, would further contend that respondent No.3 has passed order afresh and demolished the unauthorised construction made by respondent No.5 6 As discussed supra, tlrre grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition 1S only non-consideration of representation dated 26.09.2024. Respondent No.3 has already considered the said representation and passed speaking order dated 29.10.2024. The same was set aside by this Court vide Order lg.Il.2024 in W.p.No.3229l of 2024. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to respondent No.3 with a direction to pass orders afresh. According to the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, respondent No.3 has already passed fresh orders in compliance with the said order ald demolished the said unauthorised construction. Therefore, the said contentions of the I I l l i I i I l { { , I l 4 petitioners are factually incorrect. Their representation was already considered. 7 . In the light of the same, the petitioners; are not. entitled for the relief much less the relief sought in the present writ petition. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand close'1. //rRUE coPY// SD/- K. AMMAJI REGISTRAR ^AS\TANT i' \ ' 'i sEcrloN oFFlcER To,

1. One CC to SRl. B. SIVA PRASAD, Advocate tqPucl 2. TWO CCS IO GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN ^ DEVE^IOPIVENT ,High Court for the State of TetaXgzrna, at Hyderabad [OUf] 3. ONE CC tO SRI. G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SCF3R GHIVIC TOPUC]' 4. Two CD Copies B I\,4 GJP t .;!Ir. Si,i --a: l3 14: ( 0 i "iito Z0m z a a Ops PAr cHgO * HIGH COURT DATED:2410212025 ORDER WP.No.5402 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *