The High Court · 2025

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct , the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to stop the illegal construction made by the 8th respondent and safe guard the Hindu Grave Yard situated in Sy.No.199 near Mothukunta Cheruvu, Macha Bollarum Village, Alwal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District until the final disposal of this Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. B.RACHNA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Counsel Gounsel for the for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR SRI MOHD BASEER RIYAZ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM, Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI ZESHAN ADNAN MAHMOOD, SC FOR GP FOR REVENUE GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.8: - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT TGPCB w / CI THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No. 52O of 2025 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'bte the Acting Chief Justice SujoA paut): Smt. B. Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents Sri Mohd Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri K. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, for respondent Nos.2 to 4; Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.S and 6 and Sri Zeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board, for respondent No.7.

2. This intra-court appea-l takes exception to the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.8887 of 2025 which is interlocutorv in nature.

3. If the complete relief which was claimed by the appellant, as an interim measure, has not been granted by the learned Single Judge, the appellant is at liberty to hle appropriate fresh application seeking interim direction from learned Single Judge to decide the remaining portion of the interim relief considering the urgency shown. I 'i t; i I l I I I i. 2 4 The l'act remains that the impugned order is an interlocutory ord€ r and does not fall within the amt,it of Judgment'. In W.A.No.5O6 of 2r:.)25 and batch, dated 30.04.2025, it was held as "7. Admitt.)dly, the appellants are party responcle nts before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned or,:lcr qrithout putting the appellants tc, notice. Thus, the appellanl s can certainly file applications for vacation of the aforesaid ord,:r. If such applications are fiied, the learned Single Judge will c,:rtainl1, examine the same and in that event, it cannot be sa id that the order impugned passed b,y the learned Single Judge has attained hnality or falls withirl the ambit of tudgment". 'lhus. the judgment of the Supreme (lf,urt in LIC of India v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. ((2018) 11 SCC 7221 is of no assistance ir thc factual backdrop of this matter. The point involved in 'I-ris casc is no more res integra. In catena of judgments, i: ri'as held that against an interlocutory order, a Lelters Pater rt Appeal/Writ Appeal can be entr:rtained with circumspectir,n and upon fulfilling the requirem:nts of certain factors.

8. In University of Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar, Central University Campus (P.O), Gachibowli, Hyderabad v. Sadik Hussain (20 13 SCC Or Line AP 342), a Division Bench of thr: erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradcsh at Hyderabad considered Ctlause 15 of the Letters Patcnt :ld opined that it provides an appeal from a,ludgment,, of Singie Judgt: in exercise of original jurisdiction to a Division Bench. The judgment o1' the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D.Kania (AIR 1981 SC 1786) was considered errd it was held lhat 'orders fa,Ling under categoies (iu) and (u) are not ,judgments' the purpose ,tf fling appeals prouided under the Letter patent'. Categories (iv) rrnd (v) read thus: "(iv) Ror Ltine orders which are passed to facilitat,: the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment. (v) Ordr 'rs which may cause some inconvenienc,: or some y, but which do not finallv determine preiudic the righr s and oblisations of the parties." c to a part Lastly, tlle Division Bench recorded as under \ I w o i I I 3 " At the cost of the repetition, it is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge has not decided the rights and obligatioas of the parties and onl passed iaterlocutorv orders and hence in our considered view the same does not satisfu the trappings of iudgments as defined under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and it will be appropriate for the appellant to file vacate petition. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of with the said observation.l,

9. In Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chuailal Nanda ((2006) 5 SCC 399), on which heavy reliance is placed, tJle Supreme Court held as u nder: (Emphasis Supplied) "15. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories: (r) Orders which finaJly decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case. (ft) Orders which iinally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the frnal decision in the main case. (iir) Orders which frnally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject-matter of the main case. (iu) Routine orders which are passed to progress of the case till its culmination judgrnent. facilitate the in the final (u) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties.

16. The term 'Judgment" occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgrnents as deflned in Section 2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality ia regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the r1 4 E \ parties. Intcrlocutory orders which fall under categories (r) to ,i;) above, ane, therefore, 'Judgments'' for thc purpos( of hling appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under cateqories (iu) zqrd_-1_ql_cI9 urlsments" frrr the Durpose of filine appeals rovided not " under tlle l-etters Patent." (Emphasis Suppliect)

10. The Su )reme Court in a rcccnt judgment in Shyam Sel and Power Limite d w. Shyam Steel Industries Limitecl ((2023) 1 SCC 634) took a sirrilar vieu,. 1 1. The Su preme Court laid down the ,itmus test to determine r.r.hether tht: r,rdr:r rmpugned is a 'Judgment" within l.he meaning of Letters Patent Il the present matter is examined on the anvil of said principles, it v.ill be clcar that {i) by impugred order ttre. learned Single Judge has no finallv decided the question or issue in controversy in the main cast' (ii) the impugnccl order has not decided any issue which materiallv or ( rrectlv afft:<:ts final decision in the Writ f'etition, (iii) the impugned ord r clocs not havc axy impacl on a collateral issuc or question u'hicl was not subject matter of marn case." 5 In thi.; \/ic\\' ol the matter, this Writ Appeal is not maintainablt:. -Jou,ever. libertl, is reserved to the appellant to file appropriate irt'sh arpplication for grant of stay br:fore the learned Single Judge and mention the matter for hearing urgently including, durrr-rg summer vacation, 2025. If such a request is made by the rppellant, we have no doubt tha: learned Single Judge will dea witl-r it in accordance with 1aw. 6 With a loresaid and u,ithout expressing any opinion on merits of the cr rse, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. -/- I To 5 Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall a-lso stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- B. SAWAVATHI OINT REGIS ECTION OFFICER '1 . The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration a1d 2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. rban Development

3. The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Road, Hyderabad. Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

4. The Dy. Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Alwal Ctcle 27 , Kukatpally Zone, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

5. The District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District, lntegrated District Office Complex, Anthaipalli Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

6. The Tahsildar,, Alwal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 7. The Member Secretary, TG Pollution Control Board, A-3, Paryavaran Bhavan, Sanath Nagar Road, Sanath Nagar lndustrial Estate, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad.

8. The Project Head, HIMSW Limited, Sy. No. 173, Jawaharnagar, C.R.P.F Road, near Army Dental College, Kapra Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri Diskict - 500 087.

9. The Section Officer, Writ Posting Section, High Court for the State of

10.The Section Officer, Writ Non-Service Section, High Court for the State of Telangana Telangana 1 1. One CC to SRI MOHD BASEER RIYAZ, Advocate [OPUC] 12 Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

13.One CC to SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 14.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Courtforthe State of Telangana, at 'l5.One CC to SRI ZESHAN ADNAN MAHMOOD, SC FOR TGPCB IOPUC] .l6.Two Hyderabad. [OUT] CD Copies PSK. CC TODAY HIGH COURT i r i. HAC,J & RY,J DATED:01 10512025 JUDGMENT WA.No.520 of 2025 fHE SI4 e J t. 01 't',i Y* \' r ( * D G.s p.: {' , \', .-;,/ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS