Smt.G.Geetha v. '1 . The Government of Telangana

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order, direction or writ more so in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent issuing the notice Under TS-bPass Act 202olcHIVC ACT.1955 with Roc.No.',l21lTPS/DC/CIR1B/KZI GHMC12O2' DT.30-05-2025 without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dt.31-05-2025 against the notice issued by the 3rd respondent Notice issued Under TS- bPass Act 2020iGHMC ACT.1955 wit Roc. No. 1 2 1 ff PS/DC/CI Rl 8/KZl GHMCI 2025 DT.30-05-2025 as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded apart from being Violation article 14 of constitution of lndia and with a consequent pray()r to set aside the Notice issued UnCer TS-bpass Act 2020/GHMC ACT I 91, ) with Roc.No. 1 2 1 /TPS/DC/C| R 1 Bt KZ GNMCI2O21 DT .3O- 05-2025 and to d rec{ the respondent No.3 not to take any co':rce steps till the disposal of the wrir crrlition. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition uncer Section 151 cpc praying that in the circurrstances stated in the affidavit filed irr sr.rpport of the petition, the High court may be 1:leased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Notice issued Untie r l-s-bpass Act 2020/GHMC ACT. 1 95ri with Roc.No.i 21irpslDc/ctR lStKZtcHM(>t2O2s DT.30- 05-2025 issued by tht,: Respondent No. 3. Counsel for the Pertitic ner : SRI N.BHAVANI SANKAR counsel for the Respc ndent No.1 : AGp FoR MUNtclpAl ADMtNlrsrRATloN AND URBAN DEVELOPMETIT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3 : SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, S C. FOR GHMC The Court made tl"e following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA UIRIT PETITION No.15432 of2O25 ORDER: The writ petition is hled seeking the following relief 1955 "....--to grant an order direction or LL)it ntore so in tLLe nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring the oction of the 3'd respondent issutng the, notice Under 7S bPoss Acl 2020/GHMC ACT, Roc No.121/ TPS/ DC/ CIR 18/ KZ/ GHMC/ 2025 30.05.2025 Luithout consideing the explanatiorL submitted bg the petitioner dqted 31.05A2025 against the notice issued bg the 3rd responderlt Notice issued Under TS b Pctss Act 202O/GI{MC ACT, 1955 wit Roc No.12I/TPS/ DC/ CIRL8/ KZ/ GITMC/ 2025 30.05.2025 as tllegal, arbitrary, high handed apart from being Violation articte 14 of Constitution of India and uith a consequent praqer to set aside the Notice issued Under TSbPass Act 202O/GHMC ACT 1955 Luith Roc No.12I/TPS/DC/CIR18/KZ/GHMC/2025 dated 3O.O5.2O25 and to direct the respondent No.3 not to take anA coerce steps till the dlsposaL of the unt petition. . . . ..'

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner constructed additional two floors in the scheduled property without any permission, and thereafter, she hled an application on 05.1O.2O2 I for regularization of the said constructions in the schedule property. However, '"r.ithout considering the same, the respondents have issued a shor,r, cause notice dated 3O.O5.202.5 and after receipt of the same, the petitioner has submltted an explanation dated

31.05.2025, and without considering the same, as such ) IP o tjj t2 of2025 rcqllcsrc.d this court to direct the responden s to take a cle:i:-,,, 1 on the application dated OS.lO.2O21tr-r consiclering hr:r- -;<l rlanation dated 31.OS_2O25 and no1 ro take any CoL'ra I \'( riteps

4. ( rr1 the other hand, learned Standir s Counsel ap]rc. rrrr[, lor respondent Nos.2 and 3 subrnitte(l L.1at Lhere is rr d r,:, tion in W.p.No.l2g}g of 2O25to the Conrrrissioner, GIIM( I 1,1 1ss11. necessary instructions Corlr issi,>ners, Assistant City planners Oflrccrs t I follou, a to all t he Deputy ancl Toil-r J ,lanning consistent procedure, and as =u;h,*they the petitioner and thev h t e not petitioner rc t re saicl har.e issrrr.d notice re ccr vr: I r -r1 explanation from the shou ctrus: nolice, as such requested petrti:r: to dismis.; the u.rit 5 expla niLt ir,r 3O.O5. !l(r:,.i resportd _-rtrs partics itn C ()rtrx;idering the submissions made bv bo.h the material on record, it ls apparen;. th,it the have issued show cause notjc I dated and the pe tioner has submLt ed her dated 31.0S.2O25 lt is noteworth_r thi Lt the IJctrtione- i,lso filed an application dated OS. 10.202 1 for regularizillir)t). Hence, considering the fac.s and ctrculnstirn(.e s of the case, this Court is inclined l; rlirect the re sito r:1,,nls to decide the application datecl 05. :t:).2O2I I i 3 .lA.s../ tt l, \'o 15132 ol )0li submitted by the petitioner by considering the explanation of the petitioner to the show cause notice. Meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to demolish the constructions in the schedule property

6. With the above directions the writ petition IS disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUW REGIS //TRUE COPY// To, 'l . The Principal Secretary, MuniciPa I Administratio Secretariat, Government of Telanga na, Hyderabad SECTION OFFICER nd Urban DeveloPment,

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Tank Bund' Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle 18, GHMC, Khaithabad' Hyderabad' 4. One CC to SRI N.BHAVANI SANKAR, Advocate' [OPUC] 5. Two ccs to GP for Municipal Administration. and .Urban Development, High - CoJrtiortne State of Telanlana at Hyderabad' [OU! 6. One CC to SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, S.C' for GHIVIC IOPUCI 7. Two CD CoPies. BSK MP HIGH COURT DATED:0410612025 ORDER WP.No.154il2 at 2025 VACATION COURT -.2=:::-axt ; r-, i q -:) ,-) $5 it.u,zffi )' 7 ).: (: { DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETTTION WITHOUT COSTS 6lx