The High Court · 2025

SINGAIV SETTI SRINIVAS, S/o. S.Venkatesham, Aged about 55 years, Occ Business, F/o. 6-6-269/70 and 6-6-269/67, plot No.70, Arunajyothi Colony, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad- 500 003. SINGAIU SETTI IUANOHAR, S/o. S.Venkatesham, Aged about 53 years, Occ Business, R/o.6-6-269/70 and 6-6-269/67, plot No.70, Arunajyothi Colony, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad- 500 003. ....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, order or orders questioning the action of Respondent No.1 in not considering the Representations Dated 12.01.2015 and 27 .02.2015 submitted by the petitioners wherein they have requested to take action against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for their illegal running of manufacturing unit of lron Foundation Bolts at H.No.6-6- 269170 and H.No.6-6-269/67 on Plot Nos.70 and 67 respectively, situated at Arunajyothi Colony, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad- 500 003 in the Residential Area without obtaining any valid permission and causing disturbance to the neighbourers like the Petitioners herein is illegal, arbitrar) unjust and also in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently,j.ect the Respondent No.1 to take action against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for their illegal running of the manufacturing unit in the residential area. |.A.NO:1 OF 201s (WPMP. NO:17677 OF 2015) Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the cir ,umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou. may be pleased to DIRECT the Respondent No.1 to consider the representatio s Dated 12.01 .201s and 27.02.2015 wherein the Petitioners had requested to t;r e action against the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 for their illegal running of manui cturing unit of lron Foundation Bolts at H.No.6-6-269/70 and H.No.6-6 -269167 or plot Nos.70 and 67 respectively, situated at Arunajyothi colony, Gandhinagar Secunderabad- 500 003 in the Residential Area. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI SUHASH, COUNSEL REF't tESENTING SRI RESU MAHENDER REDD) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI G.MADHUSUDAN Fl :DDy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI CH.JAYA KRlli INA The Court made the following ORDER IN THE HIGH COIIRT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I TDEABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.13462 of 2O15 DATE: o5.12.2o25 Between: T. Srinivasa Chary & Others ...Petitioner AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation & others ORDER: ...Respondents This u.rit petition is filed see king following relief: "To declore the actioft of the respondent No- 1 in not consideing the representations doted 12.01.2015 and 27-O2.2015 submitted bg the petitioners uherein they haue requested to take action against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for their illegal running of manufactuing unit of Iron Foundation Bolts at H.No.6- 6-269/70 and H.No.6-6'269/67 on plot Nos.7O and 67 respectiuely, situated at Arunajyothi Colong, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad in the residential area without obtaining any ualid permission and causing disturbance to the neighbourers like the petitioners herein as illegal and arbitrary . "

2. Heard Sri Suhash, learned counsel representing Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G. Madhusudan Reddy, lcarned Standing counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri C.H. Jaya Krishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2 - \

3. Brief facls of the issue as averred in writ affLr petitioner No. I is the absolu te owner and ; residential house bearing H.No.6-6-269 /69 it flc petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner and I residential house bearing H.No.6-6-269/71 ir-r situated at Arunajyothi Colony, Gandhinagar, lJ avit are that ossessor of t No.69 and ossessor of plot No.71, rcunderabad (herein after referred to as "the subject propertlr'') He further submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are -reighbors to the petitioners are illegally running a manufacturitr ; unit of Iron Foundation Bol[s in the subject property ancl the y iLre running the manufacturing unit a1l through day and nigl t round thc clock without any break in the residential area. < ue to which there are heary noises, vibrations and disturba -rccs to thc neighbors and huge metal dust has also been er lered in the locality which is causing air pollution; and that pct tioncrs gave complaint to the Telangana State Pollution Cr 'r trol Board (TSPCB) on 23.12.2014, against the air pollution I eing caused by respondent Nos.2 and 3; that the officia: of TSPCB inspected the subject property and addressed a le Lter da ted

13.O2.2O15 to respondent No- 1/GHMC, wherein 1 is observed that the subject property is surroundecl by thi,;. residential houses/godowns and that there is every chance , f noise and nuisance to the surrounding residents and tlso severe l vibrations from the engineering activities and engineering waste is being dumped in the surroundings

4. It is further averred that petitioners submitted a representation dated 12-01.2015 to respondent No. 1 to take action against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for running illegal manufacturing of Iron Foundation Bolts in the subject property and despite receiving the said representation, respondent No.1 did not take any action. The petrtioners submitted another representation dated. 27 .02.2015 to respondent No.1 to take action against respondent Nos.2 and 3, but respondent No.1 did not take any action. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is hled.

5. Counter is hled on behalf of respondent No.l simply denying the averments made in the writ affidavit without stating as to whether any action has been taken by respondent No. 1/GHMC on the representation given by the petitioners.

6. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 hled counter affidavit stating that they are not illegally running manufacturing unit of Iron Foundation Bolts in the subject property and the allegations made by the petitioners are frivolous ald no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners prior to the TSPCB addressing a letter dated 13.O2.2O15 to respondent No. 1 and it is further averred thal the subject prope.rty consists 4 =<"et - of four blocks i.e., A, B, C and D blocks, which *,ere initially under the control of Endowment Department; tha - initiaily, no permission was given for construction, subseque r 1y, the samc was permitted by the GHMC. It is further rvcrred that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have submitted a repres l rtation date d

17.7O.2025 under Section 455A and 455AA of th : GIIMC Act, i955 to regularize the subject property and the szt re is pending and in a writ petition uide W.P.No.32173 of 2 )25 filed by respondent No.2, this Court granted interim order dirccting the respondcnts/ GHMC not to interfere with the l ossession of respondent No.2 / petitioner therein.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners sr.L ,rnitted that petitioners and the locaiity are put to severe i rconvenience because of noise and dust which rs emr rating from manufacturing activity being carried out by rcsp, ndcnt Nos.2 and 3. He furthe r submitted that despite lette r date d

13.02.2075 addressed by TSPCB to respondent N<. L, no action has been taken and two representations dated l1] 11.2015 and 27 .O2.2O75 filed by the petitioners are not cons i lered by the respondent No. 1.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for resp r:tdent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that previously, no license u.as given by the GHMC. However, recently, respondent Nos.12 rncl 3 have { 5 obtained trade license on 31.1O.2O25, therefore, the allegations made by the petitioners that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are carrying out manufacturing work illegally is factually incorrect and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

9. Perusal of the record disclose that Pollution Control Board has inspected the subject property and addressed a ietter dated

13.O2.2015 to respondent No.1 stating that engineering waste is being dumped in the subject property and there is every chance of noise, nuisance to the surrounding residents as well as severe vibrations from the engineering activities carried out by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and further the shutter/ activity is surrounded by thick residential houses/godowns. In the counter affidavit hled by respondent No.1, there is no reference to the observation made by the Pollution Control Board as well as categorical averments made by the petitioners wrth regard to noise, air pollution and inconvenience caused to the local people. Though, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have obtained trade license recently, the same is subject to certain conditions and the same can be suspended/cancelled if the applicable terms and conditions are found to have been contravened or any situation arises out of the trade so as to cause nuisance/damage/harm to praperty or health of public and that I I 6 buitding is used for running the business in oth: than zones prescribed for the said activitY. I O. In the light of the above facts and circunr rtances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ p tition with a dircction to respondent No.1 to inspect the prelr:i res and take appropriate action, if the terms of trade license ar: violated or if the activify being carried out by respondent No '2 and 3 is contrary to zorre regulations and the same is cau; ng noise, air pollution in the locality by duly issuing notice to I I e petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also affordi tg them an opportunity ol hearing. I L . Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed o' No order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand clismissed //TRUE COPY// SD/.S. ] IALLIKARJUNA RAO ASS;I }TANT REGISTRAR |..-., SECTION OFFICER CORPORATION, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

1. The Additional Commissioner, GREATER HYDERABAT MUNtCtPAL 2. One CC to lV/s RESU LAW OFFICE, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDAN REDDY, Advocate ( ,PUCI 4. One CC to SRI CH.JAYA KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD Copies To SA GJP w ' ,r. . .-i, l:-. . ' : )4.1-:r r -: .: r ;.. n€i=:A:,:.- . .{,. _. .::1ira: - L i, ri;lT; ,. , ,,. ,,., HIGH COURT DATED:0511212025 ( \, rt\:l 1{t M \ -) ') ' ,t .t., '\.-' ORDER WP.No.13462 of 2015 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.