1. LATEEFUNNISA v. 1. The District Consumer Forum

4. Sri Ram Sharm,a, S/o Ramavtar, Aged 41 years, Occ- Business. 5. K. Praveen, S/o. Narsing Rao, Aged 32 years, Occ. Private' Service. 6. litl. Gangaram, {i/o M. Devanna, Aged 55 years, Occ. Labour. 7. Rallabandi Laxrni, Wo. Ramakishan, Aged 45 years, Occ. House Hold. Respondents 3 to 7 are R:/o. Ward No. 24. Bhokthapur, Ne,ar Railway Tracks, Adilabad Towp )istrict Adilabad. ...RESPONDENTS Fetitiqn under Artiqle 226 qt the Cqnslitutipn of lndia praying that in the circumstances staled in lhe pffidgvif filed tferewith, lhe High Court may he ple4sed to lssued a writ, ordef or (iregtion mpre particqlarly orre in'the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for {f're rgqords relBling to and connectgd with orqers passed in Q.C No, '1 ot .2Q12 datgd 01 l0.2qi2 o!' the file qf the District Consumer Forum, Adilabad i.e. lst respondent anfl set 4side the same as illegal, without jurisfliction, nonest in the eye pf lalv and void abinitio and further restrain the 2nd respqndent from interfgring with the peaceful ownership and possession of petitiongrs prqpe(y bearl[g ltltrnicipal No. 7-7-1 1,7-7-111A.7-7111?,7-7-14111tr/2, 7-7,16t1t4t1 , 7-7-1611t5, 7-7-18t118, 7,7-1Al 1t 7 , 7-7-1Ql 1t12, 4-5-29t2 and !'5; 2912 respectively siiuated at Bhuktapul Adilabgd l.A. NO: 2 F 013 N 1 F Fetitign undgr Sectipn 101 APQ praying that in tfe circutnstanaes $tated in the affidavit filed in suppqrt of the writ petiiigp, the'High Court rnay be pleased to dirgct the 11! lespgndqnf no{ !o iplg(gre wilb thq possessipn and enjoyme0t qf the petilionerE propQnies bea[ing [yluoicipal l!o Z-7-1 1, 7-7.11tA. 7-7-1113, 7-I. 14t1t5t2, 7 -7-1A/1/411 , 7:7 -1611t5, 7-7 -16t1tfi, 7 -7 -16t 1l 7 , 7 .7 -16i 1112, 4-5-Z9lZ and 4-5-29tQ respectivqty sitgEted {t Bhq[ippur, AdilEbad duly Suspending lhe operatiqn of the order pgssqq in QQ No. 1"11201? dt 1 10.2012 by the Distliof Consumer Forum. Adilabad pqpdinq disposal aJ tho main writ petitign Cgunsel for the Pelitiongp: $Rl. q IHANIHIBHUSHAN RAQ 9ounsel for the Respondent No.'l; qP FaB 9IVILL SUPPLIES Coqnsql for the Respondent NO.2l SEI PUT]A KBISHNA REEDY Sc FQR MC 9qunsel for the Regpondent NOs.3 t97:. .-,' The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND ?HE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITI oN NO. 1l48 0F 2013 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar ShauiLi) Aggrieved by the order, dated 01.lO.2Ol2 passed in C.C.No.LI of 2OI2 on the file of respondent No.l_District Consumer Forum at Adilabad (for short, ,the District Forum), the present Writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri U. Shanthi Bhushal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that respondent Nos.3 to 7 have lodged a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, L9g6, before the District Forum, Adilabad uide C.C.No.11 of 2OI2, alleging that respondent No.2-Municipal Commissioner has not been removing the illegal constructions on the Master Plal 5O road and sought a direction to respondent No.2 to remove the illegal constructions and lay the Mzrster plan 5O Road. Vide order, dated 01.12.2OI2, the Di:;trict Forum allowed the said complaint ald directed the Municipat Commissione,: to remove the obstructions i.e., illegal constructions over the master plan 50 feet roa<i and lay 50 feet wide road. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further conte,ded that the petitioners are o\r/ners of the property and they are apprehending that if the orders of the District Fcrum in C.C.No. Il of 2012, dated 01. lO.2OL2 are implemerLted, the Municipal Commissioner might remove their t:ncroachments. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ P,:tition is liled.

4. This Cou::t, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is of th.e view that if the Municipal Commissioner takes any steps to implement the order passed by the District Forum in c.c.No. lr of 2012, dated o1. lo.2ol2, it is ner:ess a4r for the Commissioner to give notice to the pelLtioners in accordance with Municipality Act and if the Conemissioner €t. ,t. ,. To, issues any notice, then, it is always open for the petitioners to challenge arld agitate their rights in accordance with law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the District Forum.

5. Accordingly, the Writ petition is closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to chaJlenge any action initiated by the Municipality to remove the obstructions from their propert5r. There shatl be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, arty, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT R GIST SECTI FFICER 'l One CC to SRl. U SHANTHI BHUSHAN RAO Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR Civil Supplies ,High Court for the State of Telangana 3 One CC to SRl. PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY (SC FOR MC,TELANGANA) loPUcl Two CD Copies 4 KKS BS - .:..,: HIGH COURT DATED:0410412025 EH1 ) Te 1 6 JUl" ?025 g c) ( * ) * ORDER tllP.No.1148 of 2013 CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 7 //t 4 //