WP/33444/2014 of Emmadi Jagannatha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 11 February 2026

COMMON ORDER:

The Writ Petition No.33418 of 2OL4 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:- "...to issue an order or orders or direction or wit more partianlartg one in the nafire of Wrtt of Mand.amus declaring tle action of t?rc ?d respondent in rejecting the ca.se of the petitioner through memo RaC.No.HO/ Gl/ E-61537/ 2018' dated 20.12.2018 tuittwut reeiving tle orders ftom the 1* respondent, as iltegal, arbitrary, malafide, inlentional and consequentlg direct the respondents to pass orders for approval in pursuarrce of proceedings of N respondent ROC.EI/GI/ 10228/O1-2O08, dated 30.07.2009 and also in pursuarlce of G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 28.10.1989 and to pass such ottrcr order or ord-ers ..."

WP.No.l34 I 8_33,1{1 _2014 SCR, J

2. The Writ Petition No.33444 of 2Ol4 is filed under Article 226 ol Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:- o...to rlssue an order or orders or direction or tait more particularlg one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaing the action of the 2"d respondent in rejecting the ca,se of the petitioner through mamo ROC.No.HO/Gl/ E-61531/2018, dated 20.12.2018 without receiving tle orders from the 1't respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, intentionol and consequentlg direct the respondents to pass orders for approual in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 28.10.1989 and to pass such other order or orders ...'

3. ;{eard Mr.K. Sri Sai Harsha, learned counsel representing Mr. K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pasham Mohith, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

1. llhough the petitioners are different, the similar relief is sought challenging the rejection applications of the petitioners by the' respondent No.2 for their entitlement in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, dated 28.10.1989 and that the impugned orders dated 20.12.2A18, which the p€titioners have been challenged categorically states that the petitioner who has been vrorking under the control of 2"d respondent-Corporation retired way-back in the year 2oo8 and subsequently they were not residing even prior to theiq retirement and also after the / /

WP.No.334l8_33444 Z0l4 scR J retirement. Though they were not in possession of the property, they have been asserted their rights in the instant writ petition for allotment of the said houses under the hire purchase basis enunciated by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.56, dated

28. LO.1989.

5. However, separate counters have been filed by the respondent No.2 stating that the petitioners neither had rights over the said houses before the Superannuation nor after their Superannuation. However, their entitlement under the said G.O., is not feasible to be considered and also as the said quarters were constructed long ago for the benefit of employees utro discharged duties under the control of 2"d respondent Evidently, the impugned orders were passed rejecting the request of the petitioners on the ground that orders from the Government are still pending.

6. [t is the categorical assertion of the petitioners in both the cases that the 2'd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned orders, without there being any proper communication from the respondent No.1. It is also contended i

WP No -334 t 8_3344{ -2014 from the l"t respondent that is the competent authority to consi<ler their request for allotment of quarters. 7 . lt is also stated that sorne of the persons have been allotted the said quarters in their favour pursuant to showing of their possession and entitlement, in pursuance of G.o.Ms.No.56. In that event, it is contended by the learned counst:l for the petitioners that the petitioners, case may be considr:red

8. I. that view of the matter, both the writ petitions are dispose'd of setting aside the Impugned Memos dated 2o.12.2oL8 by directing the petitioners to approach the responclent No.1 by showing evidence that they are in possession of the subject quarters even prior to the Supera'nuation and after the superannuation as on today. That being so, the respondent No.l, by considering their represerrtation along with documents placed by them, evidenci.ng their possession of the said quarters, if tJrey are entitled to be regularized in the said G.o.MS.No.56 dated 28-Lo.2c'19, pass appropriate orders by following due process of law and also giving the right of opportunity to the petitioners wP.No.r34r8_r34"*1ii to show that they are entitled to be granted to the said quarters under Hire Purchase basis uide G.o.MS.No.56, dated

28. LO.2019. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shafl stand closed. ,ffRUE COPY,, OFFICER \ \ To, Hyderabad, State of

1. The Prl. Secretary' Municipal Administration' , H::1Tlii""ion"r, warangar Municipar corporation, waransal District'

3. One CC to SRIK'V'BHANU PRASAD' Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to SRI PASHAM MOHITH' SC FOR GWMC [OPUCI

5. TwoCCstoGPFoRMcP!4?l'N&URBANDEV,HighCourtfortheState !' "ir"6.g"na at HYderabad touTl

6. Two CD CoPies M BSR PMK

, / i I I HIGH I}OURT DATEDi 1110212026

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.33418 & 33444 of 2014 i-IE S

\ C) 1 I utg 1{]26 t t DISPOSING OF OTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS \ D D ^tb