MohdRafath v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing the Show cause Notice and Revocaiion Order vide Proceedings No. G'1/418/2025 dated 21- 06- 2025 issued by the 2d respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 -and consequently suspend the Proceedings No. G1141812025 daled 21-06'2025 pu.."d by the.2nd Respondent, and declare that the building permission granted. to ih" p"tition", vide permit No. 460561/NALGI147312024 dated 06. 02. 2025 is valid, subsisting, and legally enforceable and pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of iustice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners peaceful possession and laMul construction activities in respect of Plot No. 5, Sy. No. 80/A, situated near Balaji Function Hall, Forest Office Area, Nalgonda Town and District, pursuant to the valid building permission granted vide Permit No. 460561/NAL31147312024 dated 06. 02. 2025 issued by the 2nd respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAJIUDDIN MD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&3: SRI PUTTA KRTSHNA REDDY SC FOR MC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: --- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY a WRJT PETITION No.1940E OF 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 - the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Hyderabad, in issuing show-cause notice No.01/2025ITPS/NLG dated 29.05.2025 and order in Proc.No.Gl/41812025 dated 21.06.2025, cancelling the building permission granted to the petitioner vide permit No.46056 lAtrALGl 1473 /2024 dated 13.12.2024, as being illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Mr. MD Rajiuddin, leamed counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3

3. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.5 in Survey No.80/A, Ward No.5, Block No. 12, situated adj acent to Balaji Function Hall and near Forest Office, in the jurisdiction of Nalgonda Municipality, Nalgonda Town and District. It is stated that at the instance of some private individuals 2 W P. No 19106 of2025 Dated 08 01.2025 impugned proceedings dated 21.06.2025 have been issued rvithout conducting enquiry and physical inspection. In fact, the petitioner obtained building permission through self certification process After the inspection, Municipal Authorities ' issued Letter of approval lor commencement of work vide permit No.46056 I /NALG I 147 3 /2024 dated, O6.02.2O25.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not receive any show-cause notice dated 29.05.2025 which is referred to in the impugned speaking order dated

21.06.2025. Ihus, the petitioner was.not given opportunity to explain his case. The action of respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order for extraneous reasons, without causing any enquiry and physical inspection ofthe site is illegal.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, placed on record the written instructions received from respondent No.2, and submitted that on receiving telephonic complaint from local residents of Priyadarshini Colony, Nalgonda, regarding unauthorized construction made by the petitioner in Survey No.480 on the road boundary at priyadarshini \ I I I I i l I I J W.P. No.l940t of2025 Dared 08.07.2025 o Colony, Balaji Function Hall, near Forest office area, Nalgonda District, the site of the petitioner was inspected and it was found that he has started work on the road boundary of Survey No.480 at Priyadarshini Colony, contrary to the building permission obtained by him in Plot No.5 in Survey No.80/A. Thus, the violation attracts Section 176(9) of the Telangana Municipalities Act2019.

6. Leamed Standing Counsel further submitted rhat the show-cauSe notice dated 29.05.2025 was issued to the petitioner directing him to submit explanation within a period of seven (7) days from the date of receipt of such notice, as to why his building permission should not be revoked, and he was also directed to stop further construction work. As he did not submit any explanation to the show-cause notice, impugned speaking order dated 21.06.2025 was issued by respondent No.2 revoking the building permission.

7. As it is contented by the leamed counsel for the petitioner, that the show-cause notice dated 29.05.2025 was not issued to the petitioner and that the impugned speaking order dated 29.06.2025 a t,1r: cancelling the building perlpission granted to the petitioner is in 4 W.P. No.l940t of2025 Daled 0t 07 2025 violation of principles of natural justice, on this sole ground, r-\ the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

8. Without entering into the merits of the casg, the Writ Petition 1S disposed of, setting aside the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 in Proc.No.Gl/41812025 dated 21.06.2025. The petitioner is directed to submit explanation to the show-cause notice No.01/2O25/TPSA\ILG dated 29.05.2025, within a period of seven (7) days from today. On receipt of such explanation, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the same, and pass orders, in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No.4, and all other concerned/interested persons, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As order is passed without entering into the merits of the case, notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with. If respondent No.4 is aggrieved by this order, he is at libefi to approach this court and seek modification of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. I I i I I i I j I I l 5 W.P. No. t9406 of 2025 Dated 08.07.2025 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT EGISTRAR SEC OFFICER To,

6. The Princioal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Telangan'a Secretariat, Hyderabad' TheCommissioner,NalgondaMunicipality,Nalgonda,NalgondaDistrict' The Town Planning Officer, Nalgonda Municipality, Nalgonda District' One CC to SRl. RAJIUDDIN MD Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY SC FOR MC [OPUC] TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLAD|VNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana. [OUTI Two CD CoPies 7 KKS TKS YK HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 CC TODAY a \ k\E 1? I UL 20?5 * * ORDER WP.No.19408 of 2025 I I I I I i : i I DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS cCe'[ \o &,"