Heard Mr. S. Sridhar, learned counsel for .he v. Narsimha Goud, leamed standing counsel br Hyderabad

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in not providing key to upload the petitioner revised building application in respect of Existing 2 cellars plus 1 Stilt plus 3 upper floors and proposed 7 upper floors on existing building in Plot no' open plot situated at Sy No 249lA and 317 of Dommara Pochampalle, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent nos 2 and 3 to accept and process the revised building application of the petitioner company by providing key in respect of Existing 2 cellars plus 1 Stilt plus 3 upper floors anc proposed 7 upper floors on existing building in Plot no. open plot situated at sy. No. 2491A and 317 of Dommara Pochampalle, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circLrmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may lre pleased to direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to accept and process the revised building application of the petitioner company by providing key in respect of Existirg 2 cellars + 1 Stilt + 3 upper floors and proposed 7 upper floors on existing build ng in Plot no. open plot situated at sy No. 24gtA and 317 of Dommara Poclrampalle, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal-lvlalkajgiri District forthwith lending disposal of this writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: M/s Vasavi Builders, a partnership firm incorporatgq y!!!91 the pro^visions-of lndian Partnership Act. having iti office at 8-2-12OlBOl')lN1' 12 2 and 1'3, Anit-tframala Housing Societyi Road No. 02, Bania.ra l- ills 034 rep. by its Geneiat Power of Attorney Hold-er, M/s S V P-rojects. rep by ^Hyderabad-SOO its Mahaging Partners, Sri. Beeram Ranga Reddy, S/o. Beeram Bhushi ReOOy, a[ed'about 69 years, Occ Business, R/o. H No '-2313, Street No 8, Jaisantosh Nagar, Habiiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana State ...pETlTlONER AND 1 . The State of Telangana, represented by its Municipal Secretary, Municipal Administration and-Urban Developmeni Authority (MA ancl UD) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Hyderibad N/tetropolitan Development Authority (HMt)A), Rep, by its . Metroiolitan Commissoner, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

3. The Director and Planning Departnient, Hyderabad Metro:>olitan Development

4. The Dundigal Mu'nicipality, rep by its Commisssioner, Mec chal-Malkajgiri Authority (HMDA) District ...RESP.NDENT' 5 The National lnstitute of Urban fvlanagement, (NIUM) Rep by its Principal Secretary, 3'd Floor, Building Complei, ENC PH RoqQ, op,p PTI Building, Red Hills', Lakdikapul Hydeiabad. Telangana - 500004 ...PROPOSED RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to implead the proposed respondent as respondent no 5 in the present writ petition' GP FoR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEv Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S'SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respono.ni t'lo.t Counsel for the ResponA""i Not'Z & 3: SRI V'NARSIMHA GOUD' SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent No'4: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY' SC FOR Counsel for the ResPondent No'5: - HMDA MPCL ' The Court made the following: ORDER ffir.. o THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.I8177 OF 2024 ORDER: The writ petition is filed by the petitione r seeking the following relief: "... to issue any appropriate writ order or dire ction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamr s declaring the action of the respondent nos.2 and 3 in not pnrviding key to upload the petitioner revised building apprlication in respect of Existing 2 cellars + I Stilt + 3 uppcr floors and proposed 7 upper floors on cxisting building in l'lct no. open plot situated at Sy.No.249lA and 3 l7 ol- Domrnara Pocharnpalle, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, as illegal, arbitrary and in r iolation of Article I 9 ( I Xg) of Constitution of India and cr ,nscquently direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to accept and rrocess the revised building application of the petitionsl c, rmpany by providing key in respect o[ Existing 2 cellars - I Stilt + 3 upper floors and proposed 7 upper floors on cxistirg building in PIot no. open plot situatcd at Sy.No.249lA i Lnd 3 I 7 of Dommara Pochampalle, Dundigal Gandimaisamr ra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, and pass ..."

2. Heard Mr. . S. Sridhar, learned counsel for .he petitioner, Mr. V. Narsimha Goud, leamed standing counsel br Hyderabad 2 I Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent No.4

3. It is submitted that petitioner - firm is the owner of the open land admeasuring 15125 square yards in Survey No.249lA and Survey No.3l7 situated at Dommara Pochampally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, (Now Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal), Ranga Reddy District, (Now Medchal - Malkajgiri District), having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.2483 of 2022 dated 17.02.2022. Petitioner intended to develop the subject property, as such, it executed a registered development agreement - cum - general power of attomey (for short 'DAGPA') in favour of IWs. S.V. Projects vzde document No.4063 of 2022 dated

17.03.2022.

4. It is submitted that in furtherance of said DAGPA, petitioner - firm applied for building permission with respondent No.2 for construction of residential building consisting of proposed (Block B) (l Stilt + 3 Upper Floors) proposed (Block A) (2 Cellar + 1 Stilt + 3 @:'€:: (-) Upper Floors) proposed (Amenities Block) (l Stilt + 4 Upper floors) in the subject property. Respondent No.2 has c< 'nsidered the application, approved the same, and addressed a letter lo respondent No.4 to issue building permit order vide Lr.No.0028:16IBP/HMDA lMEDlzO23 dated 09.05.2023. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued building permit order, and on the same day and the petitioner started construction as per the permit order.

5. It is submitted that later on 30.09.2023 revised building permission was submitted by the petitioner to respond rnt No'2 with a proposal to construct residential building consisting ol existing 2 cellars -+ 1 Stilt + 3 Upper Floors and proposed 7 upper floors over and above the earlier existing building in the subject properly. In response thereto, respondent No.3 issued shorl lall letter on

12.10.2023 indicating certain short falls and petitione was directed to comply the short falls within seven (7) days. 6 It is submitted that petitioner has complied with .he short falls, and thereafter respondent No .2 vide lettet dated 04. 1 I .- 1023 informed the petitioner that their application for revised buildirrg permission 4 dated 30.09.2023 was rejected on the ground that proposal submitted by them is not as per the building rules. 7 It is submitted that the revised building permission submitted by the petitioner was rejected stating that it was not in conformity with the provisions of the G.O. Ms.No.168, MA & LID (M), dated 07 .04.2012 and amendments made thereto, and also as per the provisions of the approved Master Plan Zoning Regulations. It is contended that the application submitted by the petitioner was in proper format, but the petitioner - firm is unable to get the key for submitting building permission in TG-bPASS. Petitioner - firm has provided all round setbacks as 8.0 meters at ground level as per the norms and projections of 2.0 meters all round is altowed after 6.0 meters height from ground level. The projections can be converted into rooms and other habitable areas, but the system is reading setbacks at higher levels where projection is taken irrstead reading at ground level, on which basis the key is denied. It is submitted that petitioner was informed by respondent authorities that system is not accepting their application. Thus, the instant writ petition is filed. 5

8. Leamed standing counsel for HMDA, a ppearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, submitted that HMDA has not received any application from the petitioner and as and when application IS received, the same will be processed as per the rules. That, AutoCAD Drawing shall be prepared as per Prc -Development Control Rules (PREDCR) and the same shall be uplraded in DCR portal for verification of plan as per the Building Rules and key witl be released if the application is in compliance witl the Building Rules. The building permission will be uploaded lrasing on key generated in TG-bPASS portal.

9. It is submitted that DCR Portal is under t re control of National Institute of Urban Management (ltIIUR). If application submitted is as per the Building Rules, key wilt be g,:nerated. The key u,as not generated in this case as there was dev i ation with the balconies, where the balconies have been converted int o rooms.

10. Leamed counsel for the petitioner contende,l that several attempts have been made to submit revised plan, but t re petitioner is unable to get the access key. a 6 \ - I 1 . According to leamed counsel for the petitioner, there is technical issue involved and petitioner is unable to access the key and his revised plan is not being received by respondent Nos.2 and 3. It appears that due to technical issue involved in the server system, petitioner is unable to upload his revised building permtsslon

12. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit their revised building application through offline/manual mode in respect of the subject property. On receipt of the same, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider and process the application, and pass orders, by affording an opponunity of hearing to the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of revised building application. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER rp al Administration and a, Mu Departme nt, Secretariat, The Municioal Secretary, State of Telangan UrOan Oevetopment Auihority (MA and UD) Hvderabad , i#iiftffibad Metropotitan Development Authority (HMDA), Metropolitan - Comm'issioner, Ameeipet, Hyderabad 3 il;'Di;i;iii h' ilan'ii"'ri ijl-prrtr".t Hyderabad Metropolitan Development a itJ c61h,i,issionbr, Dundigat Municipatity, M.edchal-Malkajgiri District S. One CC to SRI S.SRIDHAR' Advocate IOPUUI Authority (HMDA). 1,-- I I i To 1 -::?!'.};:-iE . iri # :@ ,7 6 Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN bfV' Higfr Court for the State 7 8 o d*TsiirTni!]ffisffi LdRHIhs,"":ssPrPnf?r'.igt'" Two CD CoPies SK, BS W HIGH GOURT DATED:0910612025 I l ORDER WP.No.18177 of 2024 I gE Sr r7f () LI 13 JUN zu ,f\ v ti t o[.spa t r '' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 \(1./ 5