WP/33005/2026 of Sri Sanjay Kumar Bothra Vs State of Telangana on 30 September 2026

1. Sri Sanjay Kumar Bothra, S/o. Sri Ganesh Mal Bothra aged about 41 years, Occ. business Rlo. 3-4-512, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

2. Sri Mukesh Kumar Kothari, S/o- Sri Amar Chand Kothari aged about 48 years, Occ. business R.lo. 3-4-512, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS AND

1. State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipat Corporation Ctcle 42, Amberpet, Secunderabad Zone, Hyderabad-

4. The Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Ctcle 42, Amberpet, Secunderabad Zone, Hyderabad.

5. Sri B. Varun, W/o. Sri B. lndrasena Reddy, aged. major Occ. advocate, Rl/o. H. No.3-4-531 /A Narayanguda. Hyderabad - 500027 . ..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to pass an Order, Direction or Writ and more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned show cause notice No.2l512fiPSlC42lUCfiPSlC42lSBZGHMCl2026, dated 16-09-2026 stated to have been issue under the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955, in respect of the property of the petitioners bearin municipal No s.3-4-5'12l2,3-4-51211111, 3-4-5121212,3-4-5121213, 3-4-5121214, 3-4-5121215 and 3-4 5121216, situated at Elarkatpura, Hyderabad, total admeasuring 401.67 square yards, stating that th petitioners have not submitted reply to their notice dated 31-08-2026 v id Lr.No.2/512fiPSlC42lSBZlGHMCl2026 and directed to show cause by statement in writing as to why alleged deviated portion shall not be demolished, as illegal, arbitrary, high handed unreasonable. violative of the provisions of the Act, 1955, Constitution of lndia and also the principles of natural justice, to set it aside and consequently direct respondents No.1 to 4 not ti interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over their said property, i. the interest of justice and pass l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court malr be pleased pleased to pass an order suspending impugned strow cause notice No.2/5'12ffPS/C42lUCftPSlC42lSBZGHMCl2026 , dated 16-09-2026, in respect of the said property of the petitioners bearing municipal Nos.3-4-512l2. 3-4-5121211 , 3-4- 5121212, 3-4-512/213, 3-4-5121214, 3-4-5121215 & 3-4-5121216, situated at Barkatpura, Hyderabad, total admeasuring 401.67 square yards, pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri. Shyam S Agrawal Counsel for the Respondents No . 1: GP FOR MAUD Counsel for the Respondents No 2 to 4:Sri G.Madhu Surdhan Reddy, SC For GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER

- HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33005 OF 2025 (CN R No.HBH Co1o67 %4D:026) DATE OF ORDER: 30.09.2026 Between: Sri Sanjay Kumar Bothra and another . . .Petitioners AND State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and others Respondents ORDER:(ORAL) Heard Mr. Shyarn S Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the material on record

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that notice vide Lr.No.2 / 572 / Tre / C42 / SBZ / GHMC / 2026 dated 31.08.2026 was issued to the petitioners under Section 635 of The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short'HMC Act, 1955'), directing the Petitioners to produce the copies of building permission along with the ownership documents in respect o{ premises bearing 34-512/2, 3-4-512/2/1', 3-4-512/2/2, 3-4-572/2/3, 34- 512/2/4, 34-51,2/2/5 and 34-51'2/ 2/ 6, Barkathpura, Hyderabad. In response thereto, the petitioners submitted reply dated 08.09.2026 along with the supporting documents. However, without considering the same, a show-cause ; - notice dated 76.09.2026 was issued to the petitioners alleging that the petitioners had not submitted any reply to the notice dated 31.08.2026 and further alleging that unauthorized constructions were made Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Building Perrnit Order was granted to the petitioners on 20.72.2079 for construction of 1 Slif + four upper floors and the conslruction of building has been made as per the Building Permit Order. Therefore, the question of unauthorized construction does not arise and the show-cause notice dated '16.09.2026 issued to the petitioners is in violation of principles of natural justice and without application of mind.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent lrlos.2 to 4 submits that, pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 76.09.2026, 1:he hearing has been fixed on 03.10.2026 and that the petitioners may be directe<l to submit all the relevant documents. It is further submitted that the petitioners will be given reasonable opportunity to present their case before final orders are passed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submittecl that there is interference by the respondent authorities with the possession and enjoyment of the petiti-oners in respect of the subiect property, as such, they are constrained to approach this Court.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of,lirecting the petitioners to attend the hearing on 03.10.2026 pursuant to the show-( ause notice dated J 76:09.2026. If so advised, the petitioners are at liberty to submit further explanation. The reply dated 08.09.2026, further explanation if any, and documents including the building permission submitted by the petitioners shall be duly considered by the 3'd respondent before final orders are passed. Until such exercise is done, respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall not interfere with the possession and enioyment of the Petitioners in respect of the subject property.

6. As this order is passed without expressing any oPinion on merits, notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with. However, if respondent No.5 is, in any way, aggrieved by this order, respondent No.5 is at liberty to approach this Court and seek for modi{ication of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous aPPlications, if any, pending in the writ petitiory stand closed SD/-P.G.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY'/

SECTION OFFTCER To, 1 . The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, f fre statJ Jt fet"ngdn'' Secretariat' Hyderabad'

2. The Commissioner, Greater HyJerabad Municipal Corporation Tank Bund Road' Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner' Greater. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Ctcle 42' " A;;A'secunderabad Zone' HYderabad'

4. The Assistant City Planner' Greater. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Circle 42'

- ;t;;bilA secunderabad Zone' Hvderabad'

5. One CC to SRl. SHYAM S AGRAWAL Advocate [OPUC]

6. OneCCtoSriG.MadhuSudhanReddy'SC^FoTGHMCIOPUCI

7. Two ccs to GP FoR tti6pinortair'tnelNl oEv High court for the State of Telangana, at HYderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD CoPies ry.

CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 3010912026

ORDER

WP.No.33005 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /,. a ( ) r 1. \

? l a^: $76 .,, ,' / \1 \r \) 1,b