1. Suraram Bhagyamma v. '1 . The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the speaking order in Notice No. 1-12lUCl TPS / C2OISLPZ 12024 dated 30.11.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent without issuing the show cause notice dated 06 1 1.2024 in Notice No. 1-12lUCl TPS / C2o|SLPZ 12024 to the petitioner stated to be affixed at the site (which is under construction )and without giving opportunity of submitting explanation and also personal hearing to thepetitionerandinterferlngwiththeconstructionactivityinhousenumber/plot No 1-12, Nanakramguda Village' Serilingampaly Circle 20' Ranga Reddy District carrying pursuant to the valid building permission No 397193 t4397IGHMC 12024 Dt. 06.05.2024 for construction of Stilt Plus 2 upper floors rs illegal, arbitrary contrarytotheprovisionsofGHMCActlg55andinviolatronofprinciplesof natural justice and consequently to set aside the speaking order ln Notice No -1- 12lUC/TPSlC2otsLPZt2O24dated3o.ll.2024issuedbythe3rdrespondent. I.A.N O:1 OF 2025 PetitionUndersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition'theHighCourtmaybepleasedto directtherespondentsNo,3and4nottointerferewiththeconstructionactivityof the petitioner carrying on house number / plot No 1-12' Nanakramguda Village' Serrlingampaly Circle 20, Ranga Reddy District pursuant to the valid building permissionNo,397193/4397/GHMCt2o24Dl.06'o5,2024forConstructionofStilt +2Upperfloorsbysuspendingthespeakingorderdated30ll2024pettding disposal of the writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI M'DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No'1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos'2 to 4 : SRI G'MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' Sc FOR GHMC The Court made the following ORDER HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7846 OF 2025 ORDER: (oRAL) This writ petition is fited by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of the respondent authorities in issuing the speaking order in Notice No.l-l2lUCnPSlC2\lSLPZl2lz4 dated 30.11.2024, without issuing the show cause notice dated 06. I1.2024 which was affixed at the site and thereby interf'ering with their construction activity in respect of the Plot No. l-12, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Circle-20, Ranga Reddy District pursuant to the buitding permission dated 06.05.2024, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. Heard Mr. M.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. G.Madhusudan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondents No.2 to 4; and perused the material on record.

3. The petitioners claim to be the owners ol the subject property bearing Plot No.1-12, Nahakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Circle-20, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners have applied for buitding permission through self-certihcation under the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System 2 (TS-bPASS) Act' 2020 (for short 'Acr') for consrrucrion of a residentiar building consisring of stilt for parking + 2 upper floors. Respondenrs No'2 to 4 granted building permission dated 06.05.2024 to the petitioners after collecting requisite fbes. It is submitted that wor.k cornmencclnent letter dared 05.06.2024 was als o issued in respect of the subject property. Thereafter, the pctrtioners proceeded with the construction o[' the building; laid basenrent and raised columns for the stilt 1loor. While so, the respondent authorities inspected the site of the petitioner and noticed that the construction is being made in deviation to the sanctioned plan without rnaintaining any setbacks. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that speaking order dated 30.11.2024 was passed by respondent No.J ryhqpg!1 il \vas stated that show cause notice dated 06.11.2024 was issued to the petitioners. However, the petitioners have not received any. show.cause notice. Leamed counsel s,brnitled that on enquiry, it was in fbrrned to the petitioners that the show cause notice dated 06'i r '2024 wasarfixed at the construction site rvhich is contrary to the Secrion 6j0 of. the Grearer l{ydcrabad l\4uni,:ipa I Corporation Act, 1955 (forr short ,Act I955,;2n6 rhe same is in violation of principles of natural justice. J 4 It is submitted that the petitioners submitted representations dated

03.12.2024 and 06.01.2025 requesting respondent No.3 to recall the speaking order dated 30.11.2024 but so far no action has been taken, as such, they are constrained to approach this Court. 5 Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that speaking order dated 30.l | .2024 was passed by following the provisions of the Act 1955 and that shorv cause notice dated 06.11.2024 was issued under Sections 45 1(l) and a61(1) ofthe Act 1955. As explanation was not submitted by the petitioners to the said show cause notice, the speaking order rvas passed. The petitioners were found violating the building permission and raised construction without maintaining any mandatory sctbacks, which were duly pointed out in the speaking order 6 As it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the speaking order dated 30.11.2024 was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and in fact, show cause notice dated

06.l I .2024 was not served on the petitioners, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the speaking order dated 30.11.2024 is set aside' The petitioners are directed to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 06.11.2024 within a period of seven (7) days from the date t I I I 4 of receipt of a copy of this order. Respo,dents No.2 to 4 sha, consider such explanation ol. rhe petiiioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance witii [aw, within a period of three (3 ) weeks thereafter. until this exercise is concruded, the pctitioners shair maintain status quo in respect of the subject property bearing plot No. l_12, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingauipaliy Mandal, Circle_20, Ranga Rcdd,v Districr and shall no1 make any further constructions in the subject propefty. There shall be no order as to costs. As a seque! thereto, miscellaneous applications, if.any, pending in this writ petition stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR { SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Buildings, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Head Office, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Circle -20, Serilinga mpally, Hyderabad.

4. The Assistant City Planner, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Circle -20, Serilingam pa Ily, Hyderabad.

5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OU! 6. One CC to SRI M.DURGA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI G.IVADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHIVC, Advocate (oPUC)

8. Two CD Copies (t To SA BS t I ;:1f S I..i I,1

1.\r t, !i..\ (\ 26 AUB 26 ,-..-:- a:',,1:'i HIGH COURT DATED:0 410812025 ORDER WP.No.7846 of 2AZs ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ( A- 62 ay\{ {