M/s. C.R. Constructions v. Hyderabad

Petit on unler Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filerd 1r support of the petition, the High Court rniry be pleased to the speaking order No. 2067 M - suspend the operation of '141lTPS/SUZ/GHt\1,1/2025, Dt.O3lO4l2025, by directing |re respondents authorities not t(, (iemolish the schedule subject property irr the writ petition, pending disposal cf the above writ petition. Counsel for the F'etitioner: SRI M.V.RAJ KUMAR GABRIEL Counsel for the Flespondent No. 1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Flespondent Nos. 2 to 5: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC for GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER THE I{ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENT\IAS RAO WRIT PETITION No-15098 OF 2025 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief: "to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or diiection' preferably a wril in the nature of Mandamus declaring the speaking order No' 2067 /w- r4l ITPS/s.BZIG]HMC /2025, DL03/04/2025 issued bv the 3rd Respondent in respect of premises bea-ring No 16-31 on plot No.7o and 74 admeasuring 546 Sq Yards in Sy No Tll situatcd at old Mrjalguda, Malkajgiri, to the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Arricles 14, 2l and 3Oo-A of the Constitution of India by setting asidc the same and pending disposal ofthe abovc Writ Petition suspend the opcration of the speakrng order No 2O67/W t4l I'IPS /SBZ/G]HM C / 2025, Dt.O3/04/2025 Received on OSI05/2025 and Pass..... ."

2. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition 1S disposed of at the stage of admission

3. Heard Sri M.V.Raj Kumar Gabriel, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for responden t No ' 1 and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5' 4 Brief facts of the case The petitioner is a registered firm and doing business of construction of buildings. Accordingly, the petitioner entered into development agreement dated O8'O4 '2022 io respect of premises bearing No.16-3 1 on Plot Nos.7O ar,'d 74 admeasuring 546 sq' z yards in Sr . ro.71 I situated at Old Mirjalguda, l,{alkajgiri, for construction cf rcsidential apartment. The petiti,trLer subrnitted applicar.ion 1c r construction of residential :lpartments and accordir-rglr t1-r: respondents have accorded buildinpl uern-rission on

04.O7 .2O'2;\ f tr construction of stilt + 4 uppcr- floors. The petitioner :tlr;o had undertaken the construc:tion rr< tivity. While things stood 1hus, on 11.03.2O25, respondent No..l had issued a shou,-caust rcticc to the petitioner stating that m u ttiple kitctren flats arc <:onr;lruclcd on each floor and the pctitioni:r deviated the sanctionecl ap,1>rovecl plan. On 23.01.2025, the p:rrtner of the petrtionr:r fir rr. suffe red scvere cardiac arrest ancJ subsequently suffered irrrri n stroke ard he u,as hospitalized in C are Hospital, Musheet-ab:rr. Duo to the same, the petitioner corr[,] not sr.rbmit the explanrLtjorr to the show cause notice dated I I .33.2025 and requestcd th: rcspondent Nos.2 to 5 to grant 1rrtLe. Without considering tLLe said subrnission, respondent irlo.3 issr-red s Jrr:aking order for impugne d lrnauthorized constructiolr q'ithin a period of 15 days. euestionitrg the sarne, the petitiont'r f iled the present writ petition. removal of

5. Leerrrt t'd ,lounsel for the petitioner submiltt:d that the petitioner is rtaking construction as per the salctioned approved plal ancl iL is not making any unauthorized cor-rs tr.uction. He 3 further submitted that due to his ill-health of its partner, the petitioner couid not subrnit explanation to the show-cause notice dated t1.O3.2O25 issued by respondent 'No'3' Though the petitioner requested the respondent No.3 to grant reasonable time to submit explanation to the show-camse notice, without considering the same, the respondent No.3 issued the impugned speaking order for removal of the unautlaoized construction and the same is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice'

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted by the respondent No.3 dated that in spite of the notice I I -O3 .2025 , the petitioner has not submitted any explanation. Respondent No.3 has rightly issued the irnpugned speaking order for removal of the unauthorized construction' Hence, the issued petitioner is not entitled for the relief. 7 . Having considered the riva-l submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the respondent-Corporation granted O4.O7.2O23 for construction of stilt + 4 Respondent No.3 had building permission on upper floors in favour petitioner. of the issued show-cause notlce on petitioner is m aking construction of multiPle kitchen flats on each pointing out that the rt.03.2025 I i t {jt I I 4 floor ald a1s r making unauthorized constructi()ns. The record further re vczrls that the petitioner has not ,sr tbmitted any explalation lursuant to the said show-cause r-totice. The petitioner specifically averred in the affidavit that yt 23.O1.2025, its partner stLlTered with severe cardiac arrest an,l subsequently brain stroke ,rnd he was hospitalized and due to the same, the petitioner cortlrl not submit the explanation. To sul)port the above said averrrLent, the petitioner filed the me<lical reports. The respondent ()o -pora[ion issued the impr:gnec proceedings directing ttre petitior-rer to remove the unauthorized construction within a periorl of (15) days.

8. It is a rr ady stated supra that the petition,.:r could not submit lh e e < ;lar-lation due to ill-health of its partnt.r_ 'lo render substantial jrrstice to the parties, this Court is of rtre considered view thtrt on c opport unity has to bc given 1 o th,r petitioner to defend its r:asc bl, subrnitting its explanation 1rl the, show cause notice issued tr'','the respondent No.3.

9. Hence, t}-e impugned order dated O3.O4.2O2:,j passed by respondont Nc.3 is set aside and the petitioner is perrrritted to submit ,3xpla'l e tion to the show cause noticr: datr:d I | .O3.2O25 within a per-iorl of one week from the date of reccilrt of :r copy of 5 this order. On receipt of such explanation, respondent No'3 is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three (2) weeks from thereafter. Till such time, the respondent-Corporation shall not take any coercive steps in respect of the sr'rbj ect property' It is needless to observe that the petitioner also shall not make any further construction in the meantime. lO. With the above said directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASSrsrANr RTrsrRAR I secrroN'6rrrcen To, Principal Secretary (ttllunicipal), Hyderabad, The Govt. of Telangana. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. The Dy. Commissioner, Malka.igiri Circle 28, Secunderabad Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad District. The Zonal Commissioner, Secunderabad Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The Asst. City Planner, Malkajgiri Circle 28, Secunderabad Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. One CC to SRI M.V.RAJ KUMAR GABRIEL Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC for Greater Hyderabad 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 B Municipal Corporation [OPUC]

9. Two CD Copies BGS. ., HIGH COURT DATED: 141A512025 Vacation Court t\ .,.. ) :... (^ ...-/ - ,:. ORDER WP.No.15098 of 2025 i I i I i I I I l DISPOSINGi OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS )^ L