The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary' Y^l111gP'l Alffii";i*'it;; A"o-.iuin obpartment, Secretariai, Hvderabad - 500001 Represented by its GP, High Court at Hyderabad GREATERHYDERABADMUNICIPALCoRPoRATIoN,RepTesent.e^d,byits di.-i"Lii""ii, cnrvrc eulraing, NearTank Bund, Hvderabad - 500001 GreaterHvderabadMunicipalCorporation'Represe.ntedbyitsDeputy. dl,"rfrril.ii6""ilbi*r" - 5, 6untt, bltoorn"s-ai, Hvderabad 500035 Both 2nd ;;J i;JR;;;"nointi nupr"i"nieo ov tneirstanding counsel' High court at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pi"ui"O to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd Respondent herein to revoke the lmpugned neVrSEO SpEAKtNG OR6ER Lr. ruo. CtltOOtUCl2O24, dated 03/01/2025 and removal actions as stated therein, for the reasons it is highly arbitrary, illegal, ugrin.i the principles of natural justice and equality before Law under Articles 14, ii of tn" Constitution of lndia, by considering Petitioner's written response dated o3to1t2o25 as it is deemed to'be accepted due to non-responsiveness even after twomonthsandconsequentiallysetasidethatlmpugnedrevisedSpeakingorder girni srnv of all furthei proceedings in consequence of that' I a\ lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to, Pending disposal of the Writ Petition, GRANT STAY of all further proceedings expected in continuation of the REVISED SPEAKING ORDER Lr. No. G111661UC12024, dated 03-01-2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NUTHALAPATI RAJA SEKHARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER {' I T / THE HON'BLE SIU .IUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.6809 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Nulhalapati Rajasekharam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, leamed standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. 3'd respondent has passed speaking order dated 16.11.2024 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction. Instead r of removing the same, petitioner's mother Smt. Meka Kavitha, filed W.P.No.33679 of 2024 challenging the said speaking order. However, I I considering the fact that the said speaking order dated 16.11.2024 is in violation of the principles of natural justice, vide order dated

29.11.2024, this Court set aside the said speaking order dated

16.11.2024. This Court also directed mother of the petitioner to obtain General Power of Attomey from the petitioner and submit explanation within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. On submission of explanation, this Court directed 3'd respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. However, this Court directed 3'd respondent to complete the said exercise within fbur (4) weeks thereafter. Till then, this Court directed a I 2 respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to take further action pursuant to show cause notice dated 2g')0'2024- This Court arso directed the petitioner not to proceed with the construction in deviation to the building permit order, dated 15.06.2019

3. Though this Court directed the petitioner to submit explanation within ten days fron the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, he has not submitterl explanation within the said period. He has submitted explanation only on 03.01.2025. On the same day. 3.d respondent has passed revised speaking order directing the petitioner ro remove the unauthorized ionstruction. Challenging the said speaking order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the 3,,1 r.espondent has issued another notice dated 04.03.2025 directing the petitioner to vacate the subject property and remove the said unauthorized construction_

5. Though the revised speaking order is dared 03.01.2025, the petitioner filed the present writ petition only on 05.03.2025,by way of moving lunch motion, that too, without making the petitioner W.P.No.362l7 of 2024 i.e. Smr. K.Udayalakshmi, as a parry ro the present writ petition. lt) :-* () .l

6. Admittedly, the impugned revised speaking order is an appealable order in terms of Section 655 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short, 'the Act'). The appeal lies before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, lJyderabad. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that the impugned revised speaking order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under the Act, to maintain the present writ petition despite availability of alternative remcdy of appeal.

7. At the cost of repetition, vide order dated 29. 11.2024, this Court directed the petitioner to submit explanation within tcn days from the date of.receipt of a copy of the said order. The petitioner herein Ihiled to subrnit explanation within ten days ar-rd he has subnritted only on 03.01.2025

8. lt is the specific contention of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that tl.re petitioner has submitted explanation on receipt ol'revised speaking order dated 03.01.2025.It shows that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief rnuch less reliel sought in the present writ petition. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is disrnissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. .l Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition. shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPY' sol- i. rnuruALA DEVr ASSISTANT REGISTR,AR \------- ON OFFICER ./ \ To, r 1- One CC to SRI NUTHALAPATI RAJA SEKHARAM, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA, SC for GHMC [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR IMUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies BN v I HIGH COURT DATED:05 t03|ZO2S ORDER WP.No.6809 of 2025 \ ! $E 9TA 14: ,n 'r 21 nAB 2[25 '6 (.) OFsDATa.!'r, ar\ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ K /)