High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstanbes stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring the Show Cause Notice No. 103l1lUClW118lC23lTPS/cHl\nA2024, dated 21.10.2024, issued by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents not to take any coercive action against the Petitioners property bearing H.No.12-5-103/1, Bharath Nagar, Fathenagar Division, without following due process of law. w lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition und e' in the affidavit filerl r direct the respon, j,-'r possession of thtt 1 11412O1197), Roai' [\/oosapet Circle 2 3,, pending d isposal of tt- )rrction 151 CPC praying that in the cir( urstances stated -iupport of the petition, the High Court rn:ty be pleased to l,; No.2 to 4 not to interfere in any ntar ner with the r.titioners house bearing H.No.. 1 2-5-1031 1 (PTIN No, 30 Feet, firloosapet, Sy,No. 16, Kul,ratrrally Village, l(ukatpally Zone, GHMC, Ir/edchal -tt4;rlkajgiri District, : main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Pet ti >ner: SRI D.KAVAL KUMAR Counsel for the Rers p rndent No.'t: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Res p rndent No.2 to 4: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER SC FOR GHMC The Court made the f rllowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.6167 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri D.Kaval Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Ravi Mahender, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

2. The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of H.No. 12-5- l03i 1 , Bharat Nagar, Fathenagar Division, Moosapet, Medchat-Malkaigiri District (fbr shofl, 'the subject property'). He has obtained building permit order dated 04.04.2024 and work commencement letter dated 09.05.2024 for construction of stilt + 3 upper floors. According to the petitioner, he is proceeding with the construction strictly in accordance with building permit order and work commencement letter. Even then, 4th respondent has issued show cause notice, dated 21.10.2024 stating that the petitioner is proceeding with the unauthorized construction activity i.e. raised RCC columns for 4th floor in deviation to the said building pemit order not maintaining setbacks, 7 days time was granted to submit explanation.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted explanation to the 411'respondent along with the 2 all the docurrr: r:; but he has not received. Therefole, tl-rc p,.rtitioner has filed the prc:er r writ petition challenging the said sh,lr r ause notice dated 21. l0. l )i . issued by the 4'h respondent.

4. \\/lrr:r' r s. Sri K.Ravi Mahender, learneci Starrclir-rg Counsel appearing. 1'c r rr : pondent Nos.2 to 4, on instructions, worLld sLrbrnit that despite granttn . seven (7) days time, the petitiorer 1'a lerl to submit explanation v i ' in seven (7) days. On instructions, h,: rvould further submit thal t -rt petitioner obtained building permit or,ler aud work comlrencenl3 tt l:tter for construction ol Stilt fol parking - 3 upper floors bu1. lr,: h r; constructed two upper floors ovcr arrrl lrbove the 3 floors and pcnr r ruse which is unauthorized constructiolt. -t'l erefbre. the 4'h responclerrl I r,:; issued show cause notice dated 21.10.10 14. 'I'hough seven (7) d a-r's t r re was granted to him to submit explanat ol, he has not submiited rht, sz - rc. Therefore, 4th respondent has passed :perrking order dated 30.1f,.:l( -,1 directing the petitioner to relrove the said unauthorizr:d < o r ;truction. He has not removed. Then 4't' r,.sl.,ondent has already forrr,,u d ' I letter to the Nodal Officer, with a rerluest to remove the unautholi;,,,, I construction pursuant to the speakins, order dated

30.10.2021. lc ',,ill pursue with the Nodal Officer. and ta,.e steps to execute the s1x'a ; i :rg order dated 30.1 0.2024. l I I i I I I t I I t t

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 4,h 3 respondent did not supply copy of the speaking order. Therefore, leamed standing counsel appearing for 4th respondent furnished copy of the said speaking order dated 30.10.2.024 ro the leamed counsel for the petltloner.

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has produced a reply dated

21.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner to the 4th respondent to show cause notice dated 2l.l 0.2024. .

7. As discussed supra, vide show cause notice dated 21.10.2024, 4th respondent requested the petitioner to submit explanation within seven (7) days, but he has not submitted explanation within seven (7) days time.

8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner across the Bench submitted that the petitioner went to the office of the 4th respondent to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 21.10.2024 along with all the documents, 4'h respondent did not receive the same. But he has not averred the same in the writ affidavit. Therefore, the said contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioners cannot be considered.

9. The petitioner has submitted reply only on 21.02.2025. Even in the said reply also, he has not mentioned that he approached the 4'h ..r1& 4 respondent \/r1l r. request to submit reply along with all -he clocuments and that 4'l' r:';1-'rndent refused to receive the same.

10. Aln tr.edly, the impugned speaking order i; an appealable order in teFr s , ,f section 655 of GHMC Act, Accordinir to the 4th respondent., [lr: retitioner has constructed two upper 1) ro s and pent house ovel a nrl r 5ove the 3'd floor unauthorizedly u'hich is n deviation to the afores aic lruilding permit order and work commerrccment order and not nrairrla '.:d setbacks. 1 i. Wh:r : rs, the petitioner is contending that ht, ra: proceeded with thc cor ts tr r :tion strictly in accordance with rhe buil ling permit order.

12. flu ri rlre several factual aspects which this C,rur1 cannot consider unrlt'r' \ticle 226 of the Constitution o{- lnlia. It is rhe appellate C"orrrt r l-rich can consider the said aspects.

13. A; r.l rr:ussed supra, the petitioner has filed thr I resent writ petition c r.rer;1ic 'ing the show cause notice dated 2l .10 2024. The petitioner r:a r rr t flle writ petition challenging the shou c iuse norice dated 21.10.,1()l I The scope ofjudicial review to the chall::nge to the show caust: r Loli :: is very limited. The petitioner herein fail,:d to make out any case t.) rterfere with the show cause notice dar,eC l\.1O.2OZ4. Therefore, the 1 ('t.itioner is not entitled for any relief nruc h less, the ,/, ,, relief sought in the present writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is 5 Iiable to be dismissed.

14. In the light of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal challenging speaking order dated 30.10.2024. In the circumstances, the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.N. SRIHARI ISTANT REGISTRAR AS SECTION OFFICER To, ,I . ONE CC tO SRI D.KAVAL KUI\iIAR, AdVOCAIE [OP 2. One CC to SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER' SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV' High Court for the State of -' Telangana at HYderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD CoPies BSR GJP fn'q, ! HIGH COURI' DATED: 03/0:3,?-025 l I I ORDER WP.No.6167 oi2025 -z'-::= :1tie ... o /..- sT4 ),a\ c 1\ (. l> 2 o I ,r -l L) 2 2 tilAY ?it25 * -t *cyL-|1 !- DISMISSING I HE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT CO;TS Pr.{C, ,9 \P( ""\