K.Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana & Ors.

2015 and directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court to maint, Hafeezpet Area, as illegal, un.iust, arbitrary, and violative of justice, and consequently direct the Official Responder t representation of the petitioner dated 09-01-2026 by ; construction activities and taking immediate steps for denl' unauthorized building constructed without building permission I in status quo in the ,rinciples of natural , to consider the cpping the illegal lition of the entire 'om GHMC. lA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir') mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma'r the Respondenls to consider the representation of the petitiort, by stopping the illegal construction activities being underta< respondents No.6 to 10 in Plot bearing No.20, 21 (Old Plot I No.78 situated at Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, I re pleased to direct r dated 09-01-2026 rn by the unofficial os.1626, 1628), Sy .R.District, pending disposal of above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. THOTA SIVA PARVATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & L RBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2TO 4: SRI G.MADHUSUT) IAN REDDY, SC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 TO 10: - The Court made the following: ORDER FOR GHMC IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7385 of 2026 DATE OF ORDER: LL.O3.2O26 Between: K.Subba Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana AND ...Petitioner The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department' Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & 9 others ...Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of official responclents in stopping the construction activities being undertaken bv respondent Nos.5 to 10 in Plot bearing Nos.20 and 21 (old plot Nos. 1626 and i628), Survey No.78 situated aL Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District in licu of pendency of stotus quo orders passcd by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLCC CC Nos. 16455 and 16456 of 20 15 and the dircctions issr-red by this Court to maintain stotus quo in the Hafeezpet Area. A consequential prayer is sought to direct the olficial respondents to consider the pctitioner's 2 representation dated 09.O l 2026 requesting to top the iltegal construction activities and to take immediate steps c,r demolition of the entire unaLlthorized building constructed ", ir_hout btrilding permission from GHMC

#2. Brief facts of the case as stated arc that the I)o i',ione r claims to be the absolule owner and possessor oi plot No.l ; )7:rdmeasuring 25O square vards situated at Ha[cezpet Vitlage Serilingampally Mandal, which uas purchased on 14.08.2OO1 b5, 1y; ,, of a valid sale consideration from its original ou'ner. It is further s- rmirted that rhe unofficial respondenr Nos.5 arrd 6, who claims ri11lr s; over ad jacent plot Nos.20 and 21 have entered into a developmenl i grecmenl. - cum - General Pou, er of Attorner' (for short "GPA"l ',vith unofficial respondent Nos 7 to 10. It is iurther submittcd Llt rt tl.re u noflicral respondents commenced construction of a Stilt + S I rors and a pent house on 6,h floor s'ithout obtaining any buildir 1 sanctroned plarr from GHMC. lt is further sLr[) permission or -rittcd that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 ittegal trcspassed into and o: :upied a portion of the petitioner's plot and further instatled an eleol r cal t.ransformer within the petitioner's land without any authorizat i-. r or legal righ t. Aggrieved by thc trctror.r of urroilicial respondents, th,r petitione r made a representation on 19.O I .2026 Lo official respondr:n s rcgarding the illegal constructions bcing undertaken by unofficial rr: Jronde nts. [Jut no action has bercn initiatcd on [he said representali,) i. As such, the presen t wriL petition is liled. 3

#3. Learncd counsel for thc petitioner submits that since petitioner's representation dated 19.O1.2026 is still pending for consideration, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the same and take action in a time bound period. +. On the other hand, learned counsel - representing Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos-2 to 4 would submit that the petitioner's representation dated 19.01.2026 u'ill be considered, if not already considered, and appropriate action would be initiated, in accordance '"r'ith [aw, and prays this Court to pass appropriate orders.

#5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the material made available on the record.

#6. Since this Court, time and agarn, directed the Municipal Authorities to initiate action against the illegal constructions by following due process of [aw, it is noticed that the authorities are failing to initiate action against the illegal constructions. However, in somc of rhe cases, au[horities are issuing statutory notices and thercafter not proceeding further to initiate further course ol action unless writ petitions are filed for not considering complaints/ representa[ions made to civic authorities.

#7. It is not out of place to mention Section 7(6) of the Telangana Starc Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS- 4 BPASS) Act, 2O2O ([or shorr 'rhe TS-BPASS i cr,) which also encourages citizens to put on notice to the Civic Au - Lorities regarding unauthorized construcLions. Section 7(6) of the TS-BASS Act is extracted for re le re ncc. "7. Approval of Building Permissioirs- (6) Citizens shall be encouraged to b: thc notice ol N{unicipality and District Ctr I cascs w,here unauthorizcd constructrc I construction in violation of or in exct:r permissions, in the manner presr) 'lhc identitl, of such informcrs shall be confidential. All such cases shall be exar within a week from such information appropriate action initiated. The informatiorr be incentrvized in all such cases wherr information. furnished by him is found 1 correct. " ng to ibed. l<ept Lined sha-l1 )be

#8. For better apprcciation, this Court deems it a1r. some of thc relevant Sections of Greater Hyder 'ropriate to reler rbad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ,the ( HMC Act). Section 428 of the GHMC Act 1955

#428. Notice to be glven to commissione r of intention to erect a buildin g: (1) Er:ry person u,ho intends to erect a building s,l all givc to the commissioner notice of hrs s rrd rnten tion ir.r a [orm. obtained for this pur]) ,se u ncier Scctirtn 435. spccitying the positio I ,tf thc building intended to be erected. hc 5 descnptron of building, the purpose for which it is intended. ils dirncnsions and the name of the person whom he intends to employ to supen'ise its erection. Section 433 of GHMC Act 1955

#433. Notlce to be siven to Commissioner of additions etc. intention to make "Everl person who shall in tend (a) to make any addition to a building; or (b) to make any aJteraLion or repairs to a building; not being a frame-building, involving the removal or rc erection of any external or party-wall thereof or of any wall which supports the roof thereof, to an extent excecding one-half of such wall above the plinth lcvel, such half to be measured in superficial feet; or (c) to ma-ke any alteration or repairs to a frame-building, involving the removal or rc-erection of more than one-half of the posts in any such u,all thereof as aforesaid or involving the removal or re erection of aly such wall thereof as aforesaid to an extent exceeding one-half of such wail above the plinth level, such half to be measured in superficial feet; or (d) to make any alteration in a building involving:- : 6 (i) the su b divisior.r of an1' room in Lrch lruilding so as to cor)\'crt the sarne into t., ) or morc sepaJate rooms. (ri) lhe convcrsion o[ any passage or sp:r: in sucl-r building into a room or rooms; or (e) to remove or reconstruct any portior building ahutting on a street which s i \\''rth in the regular Iine of such streett shilll to thc Commissioner in a form obtained [c r purpose under section 435 notice ,rt intention, spccifying l-he portion of the brr I in which such work is to be executed. naturc and extellt of the intended u,ork. particular part or parts, if any, of sucl. r which is or are intendcd to be used for hrr. habitation and the name of the person r,,'i hc intends to cmploy to supenls( exccu tiolt. " rl a 3ive [ing Section 451 of GHMC Act 1955 "451. Inspection of buildings in coursr of erection, alteration etc.:- The Commiss r ner may at anv timc during the erectiotr or rc crcctron ol a building or thc execution o tnv sucl.r r.r,ork as is described in Scction 433 r r rke an ulspection thcrcof without giving prr:r.i rus notice of his intentton so to do." Section 452 ofGHMC Act 1955

#452. Demolition or alteration of the builC ng work unlawfully commenced, carried o:l or completed and appeal thereon:- (l) lf tre Commissroncr is s:rtishecl that the construct ()n pr rc construction of any building or exe(:L I ()n 7 of any work as described in Section 433 is commenced or carried out contrary to the provisions of the Act or builciing rules or bye- laws made thereunder, he shall make a provisional order requiring the person who is constructing or re-constructing such building or executing such work or has construeted or re-constructed such building or executed such to demolish such unauthorized construction or re-construction or work within a period specified to bring such construction or re construction of the building or work in conformity with the provisions o[ the Act or buildrng rules or Bye-larvs made thereunder arld may also direct that until the said order is complied with, the concerned person shall refrain from proceeding ri'ith such construction or reconstruction o[ the building or work. Section 456 of GHMC Act 195s "Dangerous StlqcqlleE Removal of structures, trees etc., which are in ruins or likely to fall:- (1) lf it shall at any time appear to the Commissioner [hat any structure (including under this expression any building, wall, parapet, pavement, floor, steps, railings, door or window frames or shutters or roof, or other structure and an,1'thing afhxed to or projection from or resting on, aly building, wall, parapet or other structure) is in ruinous condition or likely to fall, or is in any way dangerous to any pcrson occupying, resorting to or passing by, such structure or any other structure or place in the neighborhood Lhereof, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require thc owrrer or occupier o[ 8 It such structurc to do one or more of the lol r wing things, namely:- (il to pull dou,n, (ii) to secure, (iii) to remove, or (iv) to reparr such structure or thing, ar C to prevcnt all cause of danger therefrom. (2) The Commissioner may also, r[ he thinl require the said owner or occupier by th: notice, either forthwrth or belore proceedi;r pull down, sccure, removc or rcpair the str.l or things, to set up a proper and sufficient I or lence for the protection of passers-by anc persons, wrth a convenient platform hand rail, if there be room enough flor thc the Commissioner shall think the same dcsL; to serve as footway for passengers outsrde oI hoard or fence. (3) Il it appears to the Commissioncr th r danger from a structure which is ruinous or i to fall is imminent, he may, before giving no i aforesaid or before thc pcriod o[ notice e:: fence off, take down, secure or repair th,: structure or take such steps or cause lt, ork executed as may be required to arrest the dar s fit. ls to )turc rble, ;uch te as ires, lef. (4) Any expenses incurred by the Commiss oner under sub-section (3) shall bc paid by rhr: c.rner or occupier o[ the structure. (5) (a) Wherc the Commissioner is o[ o I nion whether on receipt of an application or oth : wist: that the only or the most convenient mear s bY ) \\,hich the owne r or occupier of structure such as is referred to in sub-sectron (1) can pull down, secure, remove or repair such structure, is by entering an_v ol the adjoining premises belonging to some other person the Commissioner after giving such person a reasonable opportunity of stating any objection may, if no such objection is raised or if any objection which is raised appears to him invalid or insufficient, by an order in writing, authorize the said owner or occupier to enter such adjoining premrses. (b) Every such order bearing the signature of the Commissioner shall be a sufficient authority to the person in whose favour it is made, or to any agent or person emploled by him for this purpose, after giving to the o\\Trer of the premises reasonable written notice ol his intention so to do, to enter upon the said prcmises with assistants ald workmen, at any time between sunrise and sun set, and to execute the necessary work. (c) In executing, any work under this section as little damage as possible shall be done to the adjoining owner's property, and the owrrer or occupier oI premiscs for the benefit of which the work is done, shall - (i) cause the work to be executed \r/'rth the least practicable delay; {ii) pay compcnsation to any pcrson who sustains clamage by the execution of the said u,ork. Section 461-A of GHMC Act 1955 '461-A. Powers to seal unauthorized construction/development of premises:- 10 (l ) It shall be lawful for the Commissic at any time, belore or after making an orC: the removal or discontinuance oI unauthorized development or constrr-l ( under section 46 1, to make an order dircc the sealing ol such development or prop,l ( taking the assistance of police, for the pu-1 of carrying out the provisions of thc Act." rer, [or Section 636 of GHMC Act r 955 "636. Work or thing done without wr ir permission of the Commissioner tc deemed unauthorized:- (l) lf any u,orl. llring requiring the wrr en permission o Commissioner under any provision of thrs or aly rule, regulation or bye-law is dort any pcrson without obtaining such \\'t i permission or, if such written permissir,: subsequently suspended or revoked for reason by the Commissioner, such r,".or I thing shall be deemed to be unau thorise d subject to any other provision of this Ac Commissioner may at any time, by rl.'r i notrce, require that the same shall be renro. pullcd down or undone as the case may b -' thc person so carrying out or doing if person carrying out such work or doing ; thing is not the owner at the time ol; notice then the owner at the time of g\ such notice shall be liable for carrying ou _ rcqursilions o[ thc Commissioncr. \c t, u-rd ed, :he Lch it-rg :he (2) Ii within the period specified in such ur r en notice the requisitions contained therein rre not carried out by the person or owner. as he case may be, the Commissioncr may rcmo\1 or 1T a-lter such work or undo such thing alrd the expenses thereol sha-ll be paid by such person or owner as the case mev be-"

#9. On perusal o[ the above provisions, it is clear that the respondent authorities are vested \.r,ith statutory powers to inspect any property and after putting on no[ice and after giving fair opportunity of hearing lo the concerned parties, may take appropriate action against the unauthorized conslructions on such properties, in accordance with lau,. 10- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Sports Club and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI| and Orsr, held that violators of the Town Planning Scheme cannot be granted any relief. The relevant observations are as under: "52. Before concludirtg, we conslder i necessary to enter a caueal. lrt all developed countries, great emphnsis has been laid on the planned deuelopment of cllies qnd LLrbarL areas. The objecl of pLanned deuelopmertt ltas beert achieued bg rigorous enforcetrlerlt oJ toster plo.t].S prepared after careJul studA of contplex issues, scienttfic research and retionalisa.tion of laus. The people of those countnes houe greolLA contnbu\ed to tlrc concept of pkmned deueloptnerlt of cilies bA stictlA adlleing to the planning laLus, the master plan elc. Theg respect the laws enacted by the legislature for regulating pLqftned deueLopmetlt of th,e ctties and seldom there is a contplaint of uiolatton of ma.ster pLqn etc. il the ronstructiott of buildings, restdetltial, insliluf rorr(]l o r c<u r LrrLe rcral - '({2009) rs scc 7os) 12 In cotltros|, scetlano in ttle deuelopinq colrrrrr'.s like ours is substanttolly differertt. Though t u: competetLt Legislatures haue, Jrom time lo tt'1 e, enocted lanas [or ensuitlq planned deuelopnk't t )f the cities and urbart orects, enforcement thet tf has been extretneLA poor and lhe peopLe hc,e uiolall e-d the tnaster plons, zoning plans t <l bu dtng |egulotions ond bAe-lows wilh imput t '1. In losl four decades, almost all cities, big or sn.L 11, haue seen urtplonned growth- In the 21st cer't L q, illegal and unauthonz '.1 lhe. menace of corrslructrons and encroachttents has acqu r :t7 mon.srrous proportions and eueryone ltos t'e tt payuq heaug price for the sqme. Econontct t.11 oIJTuent people ond those hauutg support of lle polircol and executiue opparatus of lhe State hc )e cotsLn)cted buildings, comrnercial contple:,s, nutlltplexes, ntolls etc. ut blqtanl uiolatiotL of t rc tttLrttLcipal qrrd town pLanntng laws, master pk,t s, tonanes o zottttl deuelopment pLans and euen the sa.nctlo 1 \7 burld[ng pLans. ln most of tlte ceses of illeeal T unaut horized construc tions. th,e officers oi t Le mLuLtcipal and othe r reoulotoru bodtes turn b'r,.d eue etther due to the influence of hit'l zr the St7te or other extronec ts recrsons. Those who constntct buildi ngs in uiolatt rt of the reteuant statutory prouisions, master I I ot etc. and those uho dtreclLA or indtrectlg abet sL ,l uiolot[ons are totallg unmindful of the lJt c )e consequences of their actions and/or omissrott , tn the present as tuell as Juture generations af I Le country tuhrch will be Jorced to liue in unplann <1 citrcs and urban areas The people belongi4t to lhrs clcss do not realize thot the conslru(1tc r.s tnode ut uiolation of the releuant laws, mastet ll iL or zortaL deueLopment plen or sanctioned btultlr ttl plan or the burldtng is used for a purpose o I =r lhan the one specrfied m the releuatlt stotute ot 1 Lt) n)Qsler plot elc-, such constructions _e Lt 13 unbeq.rqble burden on public ilitie @men ities like wqter electrici seurerqqe etc. gDq.rt from creatin q cho.os on the roads. The poLLution cause-d due to traffc congestion alfects the health of the road users. The ped, estians and people belonging to weaker sections of the societA, who carunot afford the luxtry of air- conditioned cars, are the uorst uictims of potlution. They sulfer from skin disecses of dtfferell tApes, asthma, alLerqres atld euen more dreaded, disecses hke cancer. It cart onLg be a matter of tmaginatton hou much the gouernment hos to spend on ttLe treatment of such persons and also for controlling poLLution and aduerse rmpact on the enuironment due to tralfic congestion on lhe roqds ctnd chootic condltrcns created due to illegat and unauthorized coastructions. This Court has tzqnce o m time to time tq.ken co violation constntcted. in buildings 9J rnunicipal qnd other lqws q.nd emphasized that no comoromise should be mqde with the t9A4 plq4rLi4g scheme qnd no relieJ sh94!l!9 qiuen to the uiolqtor of the town plqnninq scheme etc. on the qround. that he has spen.t s-ubstqlntiql qmount on construction of the buildinas etc. - K. Ramdqs Sheno v. Chie Officers, Toutn Municipql Couttcil, Udipt 7974 t2) SCC 506, Dr. G.N. Khaiuria u. Delhi Deaelopment Authoritu 1995 15) SCC 762. M.I. Puilders hn. Ltd. u. Ro.d.heu Shlt(Im Srrlru 7999 16) SCC 464, Friends Colons Deaelo ment Committee v. Stqte o Ortssa 2OO4 18) SCC 733, M.C. Mehto. u. Uniot of Indie 2006 (3) SCC 399 and S.N. Chdndrqsekhar v. Stote of Karndtaka 2006 t3) scc 208.

#53. Unfortutlatelg, dcsptte repeated lLtdgntents bA tlrc this Court and llLqh Colirls. rlre bulders ond 1 t 1,4 other qJfluent peopLe engaged tn the constrlt't )tL actulties, who haue, ouer the Aears shou)tt s. nt respect for regulatorA tnechanism enuisoged he mutucipaL and other -su,r1iqI laws, (1s olso he master plal]s, zonol deuelopment .7rlr r-s, sanctioned plans etc., haue rec.e\ zd encouragenrcnt and support from the :t ..te ofpttrolus. As ond tL'hen lhc courls houe p,t. , ,d orders or the offi.cers oI local and other bodies ltr ue tokerr actton for ensunrug igorous complianc= of [oLUs relating to ptannecl deuelopment of the cit zs arrd urban areas and issued dtrections or denolition of illegal/ urututh<tri, :d con.\fnrcflons, Lhose in poLLter haue come forut rd lo protect the wrong doers either bg iss t tg adtntnistrattue orders or enqcttng laut:, br requLanzatio of tlLe,gal and unauthor i ..1 coDstr-uctio/rs in the nante oJ compassion c v7 hardshtp. Such ocl, ons haue done trrepct.r t le hann to the concept of pleltt1ed deue[opment o1 rc crlrcs otld urbart areas. It is hiqh time that t rc executiae dnd Dolitico.l oDDa.rqtus of the St. te take serious vieu of the me nace of illeoal i Ld unq.uthorized constntctions and. stop tlt ir suDDort to the lobbies of affluent clqss t build.ers dnd others, else eaen the ntral qr €rs he countnt uill soon @itness strft'.| tr chaotic conditions. " lEmohasis suDDlied.)

#22. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ilr Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and Ors SCC 357, held that Constitutional Courts ou11: exercise their equitable jurisdiction to regularizc i unauthorizcd constructions. The reler.ant obsenz as under: ha Ekta and Ors. (2o i3) s t not [o egal and ions arc I 15 reiterdte '45. ln uiew of the oboue dtscussion, we hold that the Petitioners ul lhe transkrred case haue failed to make out a case for direchng the Respondents to regutaize the constructiotl made in uolalion of the sanctioned plan. Rather, lhe ratio of the aboue- noted judgments and, uL parltcuLor, Royal Paradtse Hotet (P) Ltd. u. State of Haryoaa and ()rs. (supra) is clearlg attracted in the presenl case. We taould that no authoritg administering municipal lqws qnd other simildr laws can encourage aiolation oJ the sqnctioned plan. The Courts qre also expected to refrain from exercislng equitable jurisdiction for regularization of illegal qnd unquthorized constructions else it would encourage ulolo.tors of the planning lows and destrog the uery id.eo. and. concePt of planaed development of urban as well as rurq.l drea-s." (emphasis supplied)"

#11. It is also reievant to refer to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil| No.295 of 2o22 (2024 INSC 866) (Bulldozer's Case), \ rherein thc Hon'blc Supreme Court gave ccrtain directions and guidelines to thc Government for manner of proceeding in demolition of the unauthorized construction.

#12. Since the provisions of lhe GHMC Act, 1955 mandates issuance of norice to the person concerned and the GHMC authorities are cmpor,r.ered to examine and decidc the issue r,r'ith respect lo unauthorized constructions, by issuing notice to the concerned partics, lhc respondent authorities arc directed to issue notice to the concerlled pdrdes. As such, in t-hc prcscnt casc, issuance of noticc to respondent Nos.5 to l0 is dispensed u'ith. lr)

#13. Having considcred thc above facts and circurr itance, rccording the submission made by the learned counsel appeir- rg on eitl-rer side, without cxpressing any opinion on the merits of I( case and after t/i considering judicial prcccdcnts relerred to hercinr rove, this Court deems it appropriatc to disposc of the rvrit pelrt :rn direcring the respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner's rcpr :sentation datcd

19.O1.2026 and after giving lair opportunity o[ hcr 'ing to petitioner and respondcnt Nos.5 to l0 and after verifying thc sanctioned plarr and other relevant documents, shall pass appropr z te orders strictly in accordancc u,ilh law, as expeditiously as po-s ;i ble , preferably, within a pe riod ol lour (04) n ceks, from the date ol rr reipt ol a cop1,' o[ this order and communicate thc same to the pe trtr ner. lt Ls made clear that if the allegations made by the petitioncr ilre found to bc true, the respondcnt No.4 shall take appropriatc ru; tion strictly in accordance rvi th lau,.

#14. It is also clarified that in Lhe event ol responct( r t Nos.5 trt 1O are otherwise aggrieved may avail remedy of filing a c rlication for the modilication oI this ordcr. in accordance with law.

#15. With the abovc observations. this u'rit petitir I is disposed ol There shall be no order as to costs 71 As a sequel thereLo, miscellaneous applications if any pending in this petition, shall stand closcd SD/-B.G.VYJAYANTHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1 2 3 4 5 6 The Princioal Secretary Municipal Administration Department' Secretariat Buildinos. Hvderabad, State of Telangana' ifilltlYiiriJ.j";;;, d,;;T; nvaerioia Municipal corporation' Hvderabad' Telanoana State. il;Z;;iCo.m;issioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' SerilingamPallY Zone, HYderabad. ir," oEouti C6mmissiorier, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Seiitinq'am'pattv, Hyderabad, Telanoana State il"'66 i;'t\,I ;: Tnbi[ SiVn PARVAT H l, Ad vo-c9!9 [q lu 9l Two ccs to Gp FOR MCPL AdMi.i c uneA.i-DEV, High cburt for the State of Telanqana, at HYderabad. [OUTI 6"L"cci; dlMAtiirusuoHni{ REbDY, sc FoR GHMC [oPUC] 7 8. Two CD CoPies PSK./PMK tu, I URGENT HIGH COURT DATED:1 110312026 ORDER WP.No.7385 of 2026 t ErT t 'i\1$ G) ;:-A * * :2 a) d DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 7RS +l</zc