Telangana High Court
WA/1131/2025 of Sri P. Pradeep Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 10 October 2025
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.5 ...RESPONDENTS d+t FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 11 31 0F 202s writ Appeal under
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.5
...RESPONDENTS
d+t
FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO: 11 31 0F 202s
writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent preferred Against the order Dated 2510812025, in l.A No.1 of 2025 in w.p.No 25104 of 2o2s on the fite of the High Court Between:
-S.Ii.P Pradeep .Re=dQy, S{o p. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 45 years, R/o #242, Near RTA Office, Goutham Nagar, Uppeipatt!, Ralendra Nigar,'n n District
AND
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary. Municioal A0mrnrstratron and Urban Development, Telangana secretariat, saifabbd, Hyderabad.
9l9gl", Hyderabad .Municrpal Corporation, Rep. by the Commissioner, lankbund, Hyderabad.
Greater Hyderabad ttlunicrpar corporation. Rep. by the Zonal commissioner, L:harminar Zone, Hyderabad.
Fl":lgl llyderabad , _Municipat Corporation, Rep by the Deputy Uommrsstoner. Circle 11. Rajendra Nagar. Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 4
Sri Kalathur Desrkan. S/o Late K Narasimha Charv, Aqed about 70 vears Occ. Business. R/o Flat No 310. priya Apartments' t-t:SOOlf.fLw B;k;;;:
Hyderabad-20.
a
J
lA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in - e circumstances stated in the affidavit filc-d in support of the petition, the High (lourt may be pleased to susPEND the or)eration of the order dated 25lo\l2o2ri in rA No.1 of 2025 in W P. No 25104 of 2025, pending disposal of main writ aoreal lA NO: 3 OF 2025
Petition under Section 15i cpc praying that in th : circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High o )urt may be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 to unseal the structures in tre property i.e. the plot No.5/part., in survey No. '18l5. situated at Goutham Naga , Upperpally, Rajendra Nagar and pass sr_rch other order or orders in the interest of JUStice.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S.MALLESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No..l: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN JRBAN DEV
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI RAPARTHI VE NKATESH, SC FOR GHMC
Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI G.PURUSHOTHAIV RAO
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
l
_,v
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.l l3l of 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
Heard S. Malleswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri G. Purushotham Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. Challenging the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the leamed Single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.25104 of 2025, the appellant/respondent No.5 preferred the present intra-Court appeal under Clause [5 of Letters Patent.
3. Perusal of record would reveal that the appellant herein had filed a writ petition vlde W.P.No.36749 of 2024 to declare the Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as illegal. Vide order dated 30. 12.2024, this Court directed the appellant herein to submit explanation to the Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2024, within one week from the date of the order. This Court also directed respondent No.4 to consider the said explanation submitted by the appellant and pass appropriate orders. strictly in accordance with law. I'his Court also made it clear that if the appellant fails to submit explanation within the aforesaid time, liberty was gr: nted respondent No.4 to take action against the appellant in accordan<:r' with law.
4. Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing C,:ursel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, on instructions, woull submit that in compliance with the order dated 30.12.2024 in \!.P.No.36749 of 2024, the appellant herein failed to submit explanation to the Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2024. Further. he vvot kl submit that respondent No.4 did not pass any Speaking Order.
5. Respondent No.5 had filed a writ petition vla'e W.P.No.25104 of 2025 to declare the action of the respondents ther,r n. in not taking action against the appellant herein and not considcring the representations dated 14.03.2024, 16.03.2024 10.07.2024, 11.01 .2024,'.1.1 .01 .2025 and 14.02.2025, in complianc,' with the order dated 30.12.12024 in W.P.No.36749 of 2024, as illelal. Vide order dated 25.08.:1025, this Court directed respondent Nt .4 to forlhwith seal the unauthorized constructions made by respondrnt No.5 in the subject property in deviation to the sanctioned plan.
6. Perusal of the record would reveal that the apgellanl's mother Smt. P. Santoshamma obtained Building Permit Ordcr on 02.12.2024 fbr construction of ground floor over thc subject prot erty. It is the i specific allegation of respondent Nos.2 to 4 that the appellant's mother died and thereafter, the appellant made construction of huge commercial shed in deviation to the said Building Permit Order dated 02.12.2024. Therefore, respondent No.4 issued the Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2024. Despite granting 7 days time, the appellant herein failed to submit explanation in compliance with the order dated 30.12.2024 in W.P.No.36749 of 2024. Despite granting liberty to respondent No.4 to take action against the appellant herein if fails to submit explanation within one week, he was silent. He did not take any action and pass Speaking Order. Therefore, respondent No.5 has filed the aforesaid writ petition ylde W.P.No.25 104 of 2025. On consideration of the said aspects, vide order dated 25.08.2025, the learned Single Judge directed respondent No.4 to forthwith seal the unauthorized construction of the appe[[ant herein. 7 . Perusal of the record also would reveal that respondent No.4 has issued a Notice under Section 462 of the HMC Act, 1955 (for short, 'Act, 1955') dated 01104.09.2025 stating that despite the aforesaid order dated 30.12.2024, the appellant herein failed to submit any explanation and therefore, respondent No.5 approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.25l04 of 2025. In compliance with the order dated 25.08.2025 in W.P.No.25 104 of 2025, Ei,*r.km:
!- \ :-'' ''
respondent No.4 directed the appellant herein o vacate the unauthorizedly constructed commercial shed in respect of the subject propefty, i.e.. Plot No.5/P, situated at Sy.No. l8/5, ( ;4utam Nagar, t-lpperpally, Itanga Reddy District, within 7 days fi-om the date of receipt of the said Notice, for the purpose of impl:rnentation the aforesaid order passed by this Court. Thus, the alrresaid Notice issued under Section 462 ofthe Act, is conhary to the order passed by this Court dated 30.12.2024 in W.P.No.36749 ot2024.
8. It is apt to note that vide the aforesaid order dat:d 30.12.2024, this Court dirccted respondent No.4 to pass orders in ir,:cor.dance with law, if the appellant fails to submit explanation to tr: Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2024 within one week from r he said date. Respondent No.4 should have passed a Speaking Order and thereafter, he should have taken action against the anpellant herein. He was silent. Therefore, respondent No.5 approach€( rhis Court by u'ay of filir.rg W.P.No.25104 of 2025. Therefore, the e utire action ol respondent No.4 in not taking any action pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2024 against the appellant herein in compliance of the order dated 30.12.2024 in W.P.No.36749 of 2024.,s illepal.
9. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the noticc of this Court that the appellant herein had already filed a wri peLirion vide I
t \ W.P.No.27885 of 2025 challenging the Notice issued by respondent No.4 under Section 462 of the Act dated 01104.09.2025. The said writ petition is pending. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant herein has already filed vacate application to vacate the order dated 25.08.2025. Therefore, the aforesaid facts, more particularly, the order dated 30.12.2024 in W.P.No.36749 of 2024 was not brought to the notice of the Iearned Single Judge while passing order dated 25.08.2025 in W.P.No.25104 of 2025
10. It is also relevant to note that respondent No.5 is not a party to W.P.No.36749 of 2024. However, he sought a direction to respondent No.4 to comply with the order dated 30.12.2024 in W.P.No.36749 of 2024 by filing W.P.No.25104 of 2025. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 should have brought the aforesaid direction dated 30.12.2024 to the notice of learned Single Judge while passing order dated 25.08.2025 in W.P.No.25104 of 2025 I l. As discussed supra, due to inaction of respondent No.4 in not taking action against the appellant herein in compliance with the order dated 30.12.2024 in W.P.No.36749 of 2024, respondent No.5 approached this Court by filing W.P.No.25104 of 2025. Respondent No.4 created the entire problem.
-
) i2. ln the light of the above, the present Writ Apperl is allowed by setting aside the order dated 25.08.2024 in W.P.No.t-5104 of 2025 Respondent No.4 is directed to forthwith unseal the s rbject property Liberty is grirnted to the appellant as well as respontl:nt Nos.4 and 5 to raise all the grounds and objections which they ha'r: raised here, in the aloresaid two writ petitions. Respondent No.4 shall pass Speaking C)rder, within a period of one (01) week Iiom todal in compliance with the order dated 30.12.2024 in W.P.No.3674c, of 2024, and appraise the said fact to the learned Single Judge in tt e aforesaid two wnt petltlons As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pendinlt, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SP l /.K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGI //TRUE COPY// OFFICER 1 . The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration i nd Urban Development, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, State cf Telangana.
2. The Comnrissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Tankbund, Hyderabad.
3. The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad firlunicipal Corporation, Charminar Zone, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle 11, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad.- 5 The Section Officer, Writ Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 6 The Section Officer, Writ Non-Service Section, Hi,gr Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 7 One CC to SRI S.IVALLESWARA RAO, Advocate [O )UC] B One CC to SRI G.PURUSHOTHAIV RAO, Advocate IOPUCI 9 One CC to SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH, SC FOR ': HMC [OPUC]
10. Two CCs t,: GP FOR MCPL ADNIN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 1 1 Two CD Copies i \-.1=:---
- sEcTtoN To, BSR BS
CC TObAY HIGH COURT DATED: 1011012025 CJ ltLL { .P { qo ,1 Ct Qr TL
JUDGMENT
WA.No.1131 of 2025 ttxtLl *: ---:ia' ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS .o ) 1\ v