High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the ciicumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent No.3 in considering the representation of the petitioner Dt. 13-12-2024 pertaining to the failure of respondent No. 3 to implement the directions of this Hon'ble Court Dt. 07-1.1- 2O24 passed in WP No. 3103312024 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the -reffindent No.3 to consider the repiesentation of the petitioner Dt. 13-12-2024, in the interest of justice // "!!' lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner Dt. 13-12-2024 by complying with the order of this Hon'ble Court Dt. 07-11-2024 passed in WP No. 3103312024 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: AGP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3: SRI M. RAM MOHAN REDDY, SC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -- The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.37OA9 OF 2o24 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr.Ravi Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.l and Mr.M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner is a resident of Mathura Basthi, Poshamma Temple, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, within respondent No.3-Municipality. Respondent No.4 is also resident of Sainikapuri Colony, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, within respondent No'3- Municipality. Respondent No.4 is making construction in deviation to the building permit order, dated 08.O2.2O24. Tlle petitioner is seeking direction to comply rvith the Order, dated

07.7I.2O24 in W.P.No.31O33 of 2024.

3. Respondent No.4 has filed r.vrit petition vide W.P.No.31O33 of 2024 challenging the Sealing order, dated OL.ll.2024. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 07. 11.2024. Z \

4. Perusal of material would reveal that respondent No.4 has obtained building permit order, dated O8.O2.2O24 from \ respondent No.3 for construction of 1 Stilt + 4 Upper floors in the subject propert5r. Respondent No.3 has issued show-cause notice, dated 10.06.2024 stating that though respondent No.4 obtained permission for construction of 1 Stilt + 4 Upper floors, he is constructing Cellar unauthorizedly. Respondent No.4 has submitted an undertaking by way of a Notarized affidavit, dated 16.04.2024 stating that he will not proceed with the construction of cellar without obtaining permission. He has not complied with the same and there is; violation of the said unclertaking. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has sealed the subject propert5r vide Sealing notice, dated O1.11.2024.

5. Respondent No.4 has contended that in the said order dated 01.11.2024, there is no consideration of the Notarized affidavit, dated 16.04.2024 and the undertaking given by respondent No.4 stating that he will proceecl r,ith the construction strictly in accordance with the building permit order, daterl O8.O2.2O24. Vide the aforesaid order dated O1.11.2024, respondent No.3 directed respondent No.4 to vacate the subject property instead of sealing the same. )| -) Considering all the said aspects, vide order dated 07.11.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition, setting aside the Sealing order, dated OI.ll.2O24 and also granted liberty to respondent No.3 to take action against respondent No.4 herein, if he proceeds with the construction of Cellar in deviation of the building permit order, dated 08.O2.2024 and undertaking given by him vide Notarized affidavit, dated

16.O4.2024. Liberty was granted to respondent No.3 herein to take action against respondent No-4 herein in accordance with the procedure laid do'u,n under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, including demolition, seizing cellar, etc. Liberty was also granted to respondent No.3 to take action, in case of any other deviation in construction made by respondent No.4 pursuant to building permit order, dated

08.o2.2024.

6. The petitioner has submitted representations dated L2.12.2O24 and 13.12.2024 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively with a request to take action against respondent No.4 with regard to the said unauthorised construction. Despite of receiving and acknowledging the said representations, respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not act upon the 4 same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.3, the petitioner liled the present writ petition. \

7. Whereas, Mr.M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, on instructions, would submit that in cornpliance with the Order dated 07.11.2024 in W.P.No.31O:13 of 2024, respondent No.3 has inspected the subject property and found that respondent No.4 is proceeding with the construction of Cellar unauthorizedly. Therefore, the sarne is unauthorized construction. Respondent No.4 has violated the said building permit order. Respondent No.3 has issued show-cause notice, dated

25.11.2024 to respondent No.4 with a request to submit explanation within seven (O7) days. Respondent No.3 will take action against respondent No.4, in accordance rvith law, by putting the petitioner and respondent No.4 on notice and affording them an opportunit5r of hearing.

8. In the light of the said submissions ard also the directions ol this Court in Order dated 07 .l1.2024 in W.P.No.3lO33 of 2024, notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed rvith. This Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.3 to co:.rsider the representation dated 13.12.2024 Y I 5 submitted by the petitioner and directions of this Court in Order dated 07.LL.2O24 in W.p.No.3lO33 of 2024, and take action against respondent No.4, strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under GHMC Act, 1955 by putting the petitioner and respondent No.4 on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. Respondent No.3 shalt complete the entire exercise within four (O4) u,eeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER Kothagudem District

1. The Principal Secretary (MA and UD) Secretariat buildings, T.S.,Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District 3. The Commissioner, Kothagudem Municipality, Kothagudem, Bhadradri 4. One CC to SRl. G. RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADIv'IINISTRATION AND UREAN 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE High Court for the State of Telangana, at T One CC to SRl. M. RAM MOHAN REDDY,SC {OPUCI 8 Two CD Copies DEVELOPMENT ,High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OU! Hyderabad [OUTj BM GJP l( To, I t I HIGH COUFIT DATED:021C'112025 { ORDER wP.No.3708r) of 2024 1tl e sth ic \ o 2:l r-l (' : a J I -t t)a .. .l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS e, 0u 2)