The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETI TION NO: 6764 O F 2025 Between:

1. Mohammed Nayeem, S/o Mohammed Shukoor, aged about 55 years, Occ: Busrness, Office M/s Gafoorand $;;, p.i.irt,,A,l"r,on""r, at Shop No.22-8- 29, Chatta Bazar, Hyderaoao. 2. Mohammed Maosood Ali, S/o Late Mohammed Arif Ali, aged about 55 vears occ: Tax Consutiant, office ai Sh;; i,6'iilUl5b,ti,rtt, Bazar, Hy(orab.ad. 3. Muneeb Ahmed Khan, S/o Late Nazeer Ahmed Kl 39."'Il.=Jg[:Ti,cjh["s;iir#c;#, jrtfft,]lTi"Xni,l??:S-'.::Cf; 3[,'; AND

1. 2 3

4. 6 .....PETITIONERS The State of Telanoana o9p O.V its principal Secretary to Government. lvlunicipat Administ"ration oepartineni, d#;#;i' H];erabad. I[g 9rq{"r. Hfderabad fVtunicipat Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner. Ufftce at Tank Bund, Hyderabab. ' -"- ' '"v'v The Dy. Commissioner, Circle No.9, Charminar, CHRZ, GHMC, Hyderabad Mohammed ShabbirBhoiani:SJo.lilq^Vof,ammed Siddiq, aged about S0 years, occ: Business, aio zz_e_qlojisr, iii;'Affiillloi, Hyoeraoao. Mir Mohammed AIi Khan. S/o Mir Jahangir Ali Khan, aged about 4g years, occ: Business, No 16_2:841. ffi;;;t;j;;;, s^!'v"!jloro, Hyderabad. Petition under Articre 226 0f rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the anioavit ri[o ir,"l"*itn, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or ordei or-Drrec on more particularly one rn the nature of wRrr oF cERTroRnnr anJ aiielcaring for records reratinq to issuance of notice, No.2\t\t22:t;itrp)nceneSlc gtcHztcHflCt2izs, dt.13.O2.2025 set aside the same as being illeg;l a;d arbitrary. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 oF 202s PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatintheCircumstancesstated in the affidavit fiteo in supJort or t. p"iition, In" Higr, court may be pleased to direct the Respondent N;t)-';J 5 not io demolish the shops under the oossession of the petilion"-o O"uting lt'lunicipal Nos 22-B-2gr' 22-8-30 and 22-8' 5;:ffi;il;i chrit, errr,, riyJ"ru"uuo pendins disposal of the writ Petition. lA NO: 2 oF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit titeo rn supiort or tt" p"iition' in".Hioft Court may bt: pleased to dispense with the fifirg Jioriginat notice daled i3.02.2C'25 by oirecting the registry to number the writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A' NAJEEB KHAN Counsel for the Respondent No'1 : ASST' GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No'2 & 3: SRI RAPARTI VENKATESH' SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No'4 & 5: '- - - The Court made the following: ORDER ( HOI{'BLE SRI JT'STICE K. LAKSHMAN WRTT PETITION No. 6764 0F 20.25 ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for Mr.Raparti Venkatesh, learned respondent No.1 and Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The petitioners are claiming that they are lessees of subject propert5z i.e., H.Nos.22_g_2g, 22_8_30 ytd 22_8_3t situated at Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad. petitioner No. t has entered into agreement of sale with the origina-l owner with regard to the purchase of H.No.22_g_29. He has also filed a suit uide O.S.No.26Og of 2022 against the said owner. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 frled an application seeking to reject the said plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of CpC and the sarne was dismissed on 76.12.2022. dr., then, respondent No.4 has submitted a complaint d.ated o3.o2.2o2s to respondent No.3 stating that the subject propert5r is in dilapidated condition and sought him to take action. on , 2 receipt of the said complaint dated O3'02 '2025' respondent No.3 without veriffing with regard to the allegation made by respondent No.4 that the subject property is in ditapidated condition, he has issued notice dated l3'O21l'O25 directing the occupants to demolish the dilapidated str:ucture of the subject property within 7 days failing which action will be taken against the occupants of the said property' Cha-llenging thesame,thepetitionersfiledthepresentwritpetition.

3. Whereas Mr. Raparti Venkatesh' learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos'2 and 3' on instructions ' would submit that on issuance of the said notice dated 13'02'2025' respondent No.3 has already add'ressed a letter to the Engineering Department of GHMC with a request to submit structural Stability Certifrcate with regard to the subject property. Thereafter, respondent No'3 will take action on the complaint dated 03.02.2025 made by respondent No'4'

4.Itisrelevanttonotethatonreceiptofcomplain,t,dated O3.O2.2O25 submitted by respondent No'4, without verifying the allegations made by respondent No'4 that the subject property is in dilapidated cond'ition o.r in habitable condition' 3 respondent No.3 has issued notice, dated 13.O2 .2025 to the occupants of the subject property to demolish the same within 7 days. Therefore, he cannot issue the said notice without ascertainiRg the said facts. On receipt of the said complaint, respondent No.3 should have obtained Structural Stability Certificate either from JNTU or Engineering Department of GHMC. Without doing so, he has issued notice on 13.02.2025 and after issuance of notice, he cannot address a letter d.ated 24.O2.2025 to Engineering Department of GHMC, to submit Structural Stability Certificate. He has to obtain the same first and then he has to Gsue notice thereafter. Therefore, the impugned notice dated, 13.02.2025 is not in accordance with the procedure and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 5' In the light of the same, respondent No.3 is directed to obtain Structural Stability Certificate from JNTU. On receipt of the said requisition from respondent No.3, JNTU offrcia_ls shall inspect the subject propert5r and issue structurar Stability Certificate by putting the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 on notice and affording them an opportunity of /// / 4 hearing. Subject to the Structural Stability Certifrcate, respondent No.3 shall dispose of the complaint dated 03.O2.2O25 submitted by respondent No 4' However, r6spondent No.3 is directed not to consider the inter se disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos'4 and 5 with regard to t.he subject property.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of' In the circumstalces of the case, there sha-ll be no order as to cb'sts ' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous peti.tions, rf any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. ASSI SD/-K.A MAJI G //TRUE COPY// / \ To,

1. 2 3 4 5 r) 7 ThePrincipalsecretarytoGovernmenl'MunicipalAdministrationDepartment' +ii; bi;i; 6i r;irnsini Secretariat, Hvderabad . o'd tVl u n i ci pa l corpo ratio n' orrice at iiiE Eliil"',li ! J ii,i"i] 1n.j c i"',i"i n vl "'b Tank Bund, HYderabad. The Dv. Commissioner, Circle No'9, Charminar' QHRZ' GHMC' Hyderabad' d; "c'C i"" d R i q. r.r n J E e e K H A N, Ad vo ca te Io P^u c I - 5.# dd io siii nnCnnrr vLr'rxeiesH, sc rbr.GHMC toPUCl Two ccs to GP FoR IVUNI6iPAi [DrrairtrtsrcnrtoN & URBAN oEVELiiivEr.rT High court ior the State of relangana [oUTl Two CD CoPies BN o I l I I HIGH COURT DATED:0 61031202s ORDER WP.No.6764 of 2025 / CC TODAY -4t=:-=' igE srA; t ,( c 7 l\[f mm C) 'i' , i " 1t1r..?i' I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,4,{