High Court · 2025

5. Smt. M. Manjula, w/o Late M Laxman Rao, Aged about 54 yearc, Occ_ Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.16-2-835162111 and 12, Karanbagh, Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad 59. ...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 an appropriate writ order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned building permission revocation order passed by the respondent No. 3 vide order NO. 1278ITPS/CHRZ|GHMC|2O2\|2O dt 25 O2l2O25 is highly illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, in violation of principles of natural justice and tainted with malafides and unconstitutional. Consequently, this Honorable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the construction work of the petitioners in respect of H.No. 16-2-751l3l1lAl2 and 16-2-751l4lN1lA' totally admeasuring 472.11 Sq yards situated at Karan Bagh, Saidabad, Hyderabad, unless in accordance with law 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 suspend the operdlion of lhe orders passed by lhJresporrclent no. 3 vide order NO. 1 278lTpS/C H R Z/G H MC I 2025 I 20 21 dt 25 t O2t 2025 Counsef for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHAMMAD ADNAN Counsel for the R6spondent No.1: AGp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent nos.2 to 4: SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH SC FOR Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Counsel for the Respondent No.5: -- The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITIO NN0.6997 0F 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr.Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Mr.Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction or power to pass the impugned revocation order dated 25.02.2025. It is the Commissioner who is having power to revoke the building permit order.

3. Mr.Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 fairly submits that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to revoke the building permit order.

4. In the light of the said submission, the other grounds raised by the petitioner need not adverted to. 2

5. Section 7(1 ll of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-bPASS) Act, 2O2O, deals with approvial of building permissions. The same is relevant and is extr:rr:ted as under: "The permission issued under deemed clluse can be revoked by the commissioner within 2 I days from the date of deemed approval if it is found that deemecl approval has been obtarned by mis-representation of the fzrcts or [alse statements, and/or against the building rules, regrlatio,ns ald Master Plan land use provisions."

6. Section 450 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, deals with the power oI Commissioner to cancel permission on the ground of material misrepresentation by applicant. The same is relevant and is extracted as under "If at any time after permission to proceed with any building or work has been given, the Commissioner is l;atisfied that such permission was granted in consequcnce of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished undcr section 428 or 433 or in the further ir.Lformation if any, fu rnished, he may cancel such permission and any 3 work done thereunder shall be deemed to have been done without his permission."

7. Rule l2(vii) of the Telangana State Building Permissioir Approval and Self-certification System (TSbPASS) Rules, 2020 (for short 'the Rules, 2O2O\, says that the permission issued under deemed clause car be revoked by the Competent Aulhority within 2l days from the date of deemed approval without any notice, if it is found that deemed approval has been obtained by misrepresentation of the facts or false statements, and / or against the building rules, regulations and Master Plan land use provisions. , t I I

8. Rule 2(vi) of the Rules, 2020, deals with 'Competent Authority' which means the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. g. In the Iight of the same, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, only on the said ground, the impugned revocation order dated 25.02.2025 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 i.e., the Commissioner, GHMC, to initiate fresh action, in accordance with the I l i procedure laid down under the GHMC Act 1955. He shall complete tl.re said exercise within four (4) wee.ks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty i:; granted to the petitioner to take all the grounds and contentions, which are raised in the present writ petition before rescondent No.2.'It is for respondent No.2 to consider the same.

10. Accordingly, this Writ petition is disprsed of. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous pe,titions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- L. LAKSHMI BABU EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ,N 'l . The Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal administration, Secretariat Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, GHt\/C, Having office at GHMC Officr:, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

3. The Zonal Commissioner, GHMC, South Zone, having cflice at Phool Bagh, Hyderabad

4. The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, South Zone, having office at Malakpet, Hyderabad

5. One CC to SRl. MOHAMMAD ADNAN Advocate [OPUq 6. One CC to SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH SC FOR Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation [OPUC]

7. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [O[JT]

8. Two CD Copies KKS GJP 1--.-.^ HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 ORDER WP.No.6997 of 2025 /. /t 22 APf ._i \l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ It