1. Sri Raj Kumar Kedia v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the Respondents in issuing the coercive Seizure Notice dated 1210812025, purportedly bearing No. PT/TL/HYT3/GHMC|2025-2O26, and sealing the premises bearing Municipal Nos. 4-4-4, situated at Hayathnagar, Hyderabad, without following due procedure as contemplated under GHMC Act, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Co''; tution of lndia and consequently set asrde the Seizure Notice dt. 12l08l2otl! i,s null and void and direct the Rrlspondents herein to not interfere in day tr ay business o{ the Petitioner witlout following due Process of Law l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petitio I Urrder Section 151 CPC przryinq that in the . ' umstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of the petition. the Hiqlr C<;t rl may be pleased to direct the Respondent Corporation to forthwith remo\'( '''le seal/unseal our premises bearing H.No. 4-4-4, Hayathnagar, Hyder;;t,ari, and permit the Petitroners to carry on business activity therein pending drr; rr,;al of the above writ petition in th.l interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI PURUSHOTAMLAAL Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN A'lD URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for tf,e Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI SRINIVAS RAO PI CllWA. SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following ORDER *-€.ry . :.'. ,, HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27694 OF 2025 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the pctitioners challenging the seizure notice No.PTlTLlIfYT3lGHllC12025-2026 dated 12.08.2025 issued under Sections 521(2) and 622 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'Act') where under their business premises bearing Municipal No.4-4-4, situated at Hayathnagar, I lyderabad, was seized without follow.ing due process of law. 2- Heard Mr. Purushothamlaal, leamed counsel fbr the petitioners; Mr. Srinivas Rao Pachwa, leamed Standing Counsel lor GHMC, appearing for respondents No.2 and 3; and perused the rnaterial on record.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they obtained the subject premises bearing Municipal No.4-4-4, situated at Hayathnagar, Hyderabad on lease from one Mr. Padala Ramesh S/o Narsaiah in 1994 with monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only); the rent was enhanced from time to tirne. The business was jointly run by the petitioners and their father under the name and style of 'M/s Kedia Coco Industries' and later it was shilted to the subject premises in 1991 . 2 E#H'\ ' r}5':'=:'- ,' 'r::' /' f \. Thereafter. the land owners by name Mr. P.Ramesh ,nd Mr. P.Ashok executed arr agree rnent of salc dated 27 .0),.1991) irr lavour ol thc petitioncrs. As the land ou,ncrs delaulted in pcr'1il1n,1r't* the said agreenrcnt, .he petitioners flled suit in O.S. No.l6 .., .100i fbr si.rccihc perfbruranoc o1'agrcement of salc on the file olthe le .rlrr:d Ill Additionat Distlict Judqe, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar I rd the sanre was decrecrl by.udgrncnt and decree dated22.03.2012. Il s submittcd that challcneing thc decrce dated 22.03.2012, the land ov,ricls lilcd appeal in A.S. No.7i I o1' 20I 2 betore this Court and stav of tl c saitl decree was grantcd

4. I.earnr:cl counsel fbr the petitioners submitt.:ri that currently pctitioner N.r. I 1S rtnniug the business under the nrlre and style ol- 'M,'s Kedia Steel and Tubes under trade licence bcar rrq No.0796-032- 004 dated 0(.1 I .2020. As there was dispute with regi r, to thc propefty tax assessmcnt, the petitioners tlled Municipal appeal ,r,le M.A. t.,'o.121 of 2008 betbre tlre learned City Small Causes ('our1, Hydelabad challenging the denrand notice dated 15.03.2007 issucr 1,r them claiming sum ol Rs.85,840/- (Rupees eighty five thousand eight h ndred and forty oniy) rvl'rich includes arrears oftax, penalty and intercsl Thc said appeal a' 3 was allowed by judgment dated 01.05.2009 setting aside the demand notice dated 15.03.2007. It is lurther submitted that subsequentll,, there was an arbitrary revision ol the propeny tax through special notice under Sections 220(2)(3) of the Act dated 30.03.2015 wherein the property tax of the subject premises was enhanced from Rs.5,000i- (Rupees five thousand only) per annum to Rs.2,l1,044/- (Rupees two lakhs eleven thousand and forly four only). The said notice was challenged by the petitioners in M.A. No.l9 of 2016 and the same was allowed by judgment dated 22.08.20 I 7 directing the respondent authorities to reassess the property tax in respect of the subject premises strictly in accordance with the Sections 220 to 223 of the Act. The petitioners submitted several representations requesting the respondent authorities to reassess the property tax strictly in accordance with the aforesaid judgments, however, the same was not done. All of a sudden, seizure notice dated 12.08.2025 was issued alleging that the petitioners failed pay the arears of propefty tax of Rs.2,32,461/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty two thousand four hundred and sixty one only).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent authorities are, arbitrarily, demanding payment of property tax arrears 4 Y.'(.. .'i.++i,'JXF;l \ under the guisc that the petitioners did not obtain vatid trade licence In fact, petitioner No. I is conducting business under valid provisional trade licenc,: datcd 06.11.2020 issucd bv thc GHMC rrrrder Sectious 521 and 622 o1'the Act bealing TIN No.0796-032-00()l in respcct of thc pretnises bcrrinr tl.Nos.4-4-i, 4-4-4 and4-4-412. Tlit: urpr.rgned scizure notice is arbitrary and contrary to the judgment (li tcd 01.05.2009 in M.A. No.l2l ot'2008 and judgment dated 22.08.2011 r M.A. No.39 of 2016 passe,J bl the learned City Small Causcs (' ,Lrrt. Ilydcrabad The pctitioners submitted reply dated 13.08.2025 ttr t Le scizurc notice dated 12.08.201-5. Despite thc same, the respondent aurlroritics seized the subject preurises on 14.08.2025. As such, the petition.:r .; are constrained to approach this C'ourt

6. Lcarn:d Standing Counsel for GHMC, basir g on the *.ritten instructions, submitted that Mr. P.Ranresh is the owne of the premises bearing Municipal No.4-4-4, situated at Hayathnagar. lydcrabad, with PTIN No.10304(\2231 and Mr. P.Gopala Krishna is thc owner of the premises fcaring Municipal No.4-4-412, situated t Llayathnagar, Hyderabad, with PTIN No. 1030406259 ar,d both l: properties are assessed for property tax. It is submitted that the resporrdent corporation 5 has issued notice under Section 633 of the Act dated 07.07.2025 to Mr. P.Ramesh demanding to pay an amount of Rs.2,3 1,180/- (Rupees tr'vo lakhs thirty one thousand one hundred eighty onty) in respect of Il.No.4-4-4, admeasuring 57 .27 square yards in Survey No.12 with PTIN No.103040223 1, situated at Hayathnagar, at the rate of Rs.1,560/- (Rupees one thousand hve hundred and sixty only) per year which is pending from 2004 to till thc date of revision (including pemlty @4 2yo per month in delault). Further, the respondent corporation has issued similar notice under Section 633 of the Act dated 01 .01 .2025 to Mr. P.Gopala Krishna dernanding to pay an amount of Rs.3,31,651/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty one thousand six fifty one only) in respect of Il.No.4-4-412, admeasuring 57.27 square yalds in Suruey No.12 r,vith PTIN No.1030406259, situated at Flayathnagar, at the rate ofRs.17,876/- (Rupees seventeen thousand eight hundred and seventy six only) per year which is pending lrom 2016 to till the date of revision (including penalty @ 2%, per month in default).

7. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the respondent corporation has not received any reply or any payment from either Mr. P.Ramesh or Mr. P.Gopala Krishna. Thus, the respondent 6 Corporation issued seizure notice under Section 213 t ' 220 of the Act dated 12.08,2025 to Mr'. P.Ramesh (for non-paynen of Rs.2,32,461/-) and to N{r. P. Gopala Krishna (fbr non-payment of Rs. -', '5,155/-).

8. Leamed Standing Counsel further submitted ttrirt the petitioners herein do not have any valid trade licence in their nar:l{ls ol- in the name of the business concern i.e. 'Karnadenu Steel 'lr,rlres and Pipes'. On verification by the respondent corporation, it was rbserved that the trade licence llrle TIN No.079(r-032-0004 is perlaini rt. to propeny tax vile PTIN N|o.1030402865 in respect of the premises I:,r'rring No.4-4-33, Hayathnagar', Ranga Reddy District. Hence, the trade lrcence submitted by the petitirners is fhlse and fake. The impugned serr:ure notice under Sections 521(2) and 622 o1-the Ac1 datcd 12.08.2025 ri.as issued to the petitioners in accordance with law

9. Ilowe'rer, learned counsel fbr the petitioners sub rrtted that there is a typographical eror and the premises number is v,.r,tngly shown as No.4-4-33 instead of No.4-4-3.

10. In view of the above submissions, this writ petirion is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit obj ections/represent; tjon to the seizure 7 notice dated 12.08.2025 and deposit 50% of the total demand amount of Rs.2,32,461/- (Rupees two rakhs thirty hvo thousand tbur huntlred sixty one only)" r'vithin a period of ten ( 10) days from the date of receipt of a cop1, of this order. On receipt of such obj ection s/represen tatio n along with the payment, respondent No.3 is directed to forthwith unseal the subject premises and handover the possession of the same to the petitioners. Respondent No.3 shall consider the obj ections/representatio, of the petitioners by giving them opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of such objections/representation. It is made clear that the 50o% amount so paid by the petitioner shalr be adjusted to the assessment/ reassessment of the subject premises as the case may be. Respondent No.3 is entitled to recover the balance amount of the properly tax arears, if any, from the petitioners subject to the outcome ol such enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, stand closed. SD/-A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT RECISTNNN ffiffirffifi#,{#Ii#d,'.ff.,:,"1ffi 3 ". in l.A.No.2 ot 2025. 1 I, u ., a "ii o? n-Jn, il il3 :XliJ* I I i ff;; yt " n u ""X . - ,'i ! I This amended order shall be substituted the Earlier order which has already been dispatch on 25-9-202s) \ To //TRUE COPY// Sd/.A.JAYASREE \AESISTANT REGISTRAR I TSECT|ON OFFTCER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Principal Secretary, N,4unrcrpal Administration aQd ,J ban Development, Secrelariat. State of I elangana at Hyderabad- 5000)z The Ccmmissioner, Greater Hydera6ad Municipal Cor:,r .ation, GHtVlC Comp ex, Lower Tank Bund, Liberty, Hyderabad- 500Ct2 -r The Qeputy Commissioner, GHIVC, l-{aiath Nagar Circ e, - lll, Hyderabad_ 501505. Two CCs to cP FOR TVCPL ADTMN A,ND URBAN DEVE Opt\4ENT, High Court'or lhe Sl.ate o[ Telanqana at Hyderabad. IOUTI One CC to SRI PURUSHOTATVLAAL, Advocate'topLj, ) ONE CC tO SRI SRINIVAS RAO PACHWA, SC FbR GI.]"4C, AdVOCAIE (oPUC) Two CD Copies M-sA BS C.C. TOD\\ HIGH COURT DATED:1 510912025 13t10t2025 F* J lli - ' i l:,,1 , I I AMENDED ORDER WP.No.27694 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1 (0 $ \ \ t?