Dismissed¶58

Mamilla Anand Kumar v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC3 Dec 2025WP/14803/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, Hyderabad; Writ Petition No. 14803 of 2015; Mamilla Anand Kumar v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and others; writ of mandamus under Article 226; GHMC inaction on representations dated 23-03-2015, 24-04-2015 and 06-05-2015; alleged unauthorized construction by respondent No. 4 Nagilla Shyamala at Prem Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad; Section 151 CPC applications; interim order dated 1-5-2015 in WPMP No. 19254 of 2015; withdrawal endorsed on Court bundle; dismissed as withdrawn; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty; decided 03-12-2025.

What did the court decide?

None on merits; the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions were closed. ¶58

Mamilla Anand Kumar Vs The Greater Hyderabad… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None on merits; the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions were closed.

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the official respondents in not taking any action on the petitioner's representations dated 23-03-2015 and 24-04-2015 to stop or demolish the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction made by respondent No. 4 at Prem Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and whether respondents 1 to 3 ought to be directed to take appropriate action pursuant to those representations. (Raised by the petition; not adjudicated, as the petition was withdrawn.)

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition and made an endorsement to that effect on the Court bundle; the Court accorded permission.

¶53

Key takeaways

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn (the words 'withdrawn' and 'no order as to costs' continue in the next paragraph of the order).ratio¶58
Miscellaneous petitions pending in the matter were directed to stand closed, and there was to be no order as to costs.ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 14803 of 2015 (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad; Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.; 03-12-2025): The petitioner, Mamilla Anand Kumar, had sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution declaring illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional the inaction of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and its officers (respondents 1 to 3) on his representations dated 23-03-2015 and 24-04-2015 seeking stoppage or demolition of the allegedly illegal and unauthorized construction made by respondent No. 4 (Nagilla Shyamala) at Prem Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, with a consequential direction to act on the representations. Interlocutory applications under Section 151 CPC, including one by respondent No. 4 to vacate the interim order dated 1-5-2015 in WPMP No. 19254 of 2015, were on record. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition and made an endorsement to that effect on the Court bundle. Permission was accorded; the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions pending were directed to stand closed. No contention in the petition was adjudicated on merits and no precedent was cited.

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 14803 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

l\ilamilla Anand Kumar, S/o tvl-tMukund^ji, Aged about 32^years, Occ Business, R:/o H.No.2-3-645141N51 11, Prem Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Greater Hyderabad fVlunicipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Zonal Commissioner, GHtVlC, Circle No.9, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Assistant City Planner, GHIr/C, Circle No.9, Abids, Hyderabad. 4 Nagilla Shyamala, W/o N.Yadagiri, Aged about 49^{years, Fl/o} H.No.2-3-64714/39/1 , Prem Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the action of the respondents^{in not takingany} action basing on the representations dt- 23-03-2015^{and 24-04-2015to stopor} demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction^{made by the 4th respondent} in the premises bearing No. 2-3-645l41A152, admeasuring^{166.6Sq-yrds.,} situated at Premnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad as^{illegal, arbitrary and} constitutional and consequently direct the^{respondentNo.1} to 3^{to take} appropriate action in^pursuant to the representations^{.dt- 23-03-2015 and 24-04-} 2015.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 19254O^{F 2015)}

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCourt may be pleasedto} direct the official respondents to take^{appropriateaction against} the^4th respondent basing on the representations^submitted by the^petitioner

¶18

¶19

¶20

dt:23_03-2015,24-04-2015^{and 06-05-2015 pendingdispo al of the abovewrit} petition.

¶21

t.A. NO: 30F^{2015WPMP. NO: 19255 OF 2015}

¶22

petition under section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the r ircumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the HighCorr t maybe pleasedto} direct the^{4th respondentnot to proceed further constructic t pending finalization} of the main^writ Petition'

¶23

l.A. NO:¹ oF2^{015WVMP.NO: 4830 OF 2015}

¶24

Between:

¶25

Naoilla Shvamala,^{W/o N.Yadagiri,Aged about 49} )^{3ars, Occ: Business} ic.,"rresoondent^{of Rishi Vidya Niketan High Schoolat F remnagar, Amberpet,} iiyOeraOaO)^{R:i o. H.No.2-3-6471N3911,Prem Nagar,Anl} 'erpet,^Hyderabad.

¶26

..PETITIONER

¶27

AND

¶28

1 nlo tr.4amilla H.tlo.Z-a-O45141N51 Anand^{Kumar, S/o M.Mukund 11, Prem Nagar, ji' Aged about Amberpet,Hy3 3:2 years, Occ Business':rabad.}

¶29

2 The Greater^{Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. ry its Commissioner,} Tankbund^{Road, HYderabad.}

¶30

a The Zonal^{Commissioner, GHt/C' Circle No.9,Abids,F 1 Jerabad.}

¶31

¶32

The Assistant^{City Planner, GHMC, Circle No-9,Abids, I yderabad.}

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

Petitron^{under Section151 CPC prayingthat in ther ircumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Cott t may be pleasedto} dismiss the^{wflt petition by vacatingthe interim order date()-1-5-2015passedin} WP tVP^{no. 1925412015 in WP no 1480312015.}

¶35

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:Ms' SOUMYA,REP' FOR}

¶36

SRI VENKATESWARLU SANISI:^TTY

¶37

Counsel^{for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI G.MADHUSUD'ANREDDY,} SC FOR GHMC

¶38

Counsel^{for the Respondent No.4: SRI VIVEK JAIN}

¶39

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶40

IN THE HIGH COURT TOR THE STATE OF TELANGAITA AT ITYDERABAD

¶41

THE IIONOTIRABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYAI{A ALISHETTY

¶42

T PETITION No.14aO3 of2015

DATED : O3. 12.20.25

Between:

Mamilla Anand Kumar

...Petitioner

AND

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and 3 others.

t I

...Respondents

ORDER:

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms Soumya, learned counsel representing Mr.Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present Writ petition and made an endorsement to that effect on the Court bundle.

¶53

2 Permission, as sought for, is accorded.

/ I I I

3 Accordingly, this Writ petition 1S dismissed AS

¶59

withdrawn- There sha-ll be no order as to costs

¶60

Miscellaleous petitions pending, i1 aril shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs

fil 3,"^i,TH[BiHIA

//TRUE COPY// i )'r'

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 ) One CC ro SRt VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY, Advcr ate tOpUCl One CC to SRt VTVEK JA|N, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD one cc Copiesto sRt G.TVTADHUSUDHAN REDDY, sc FOR (j JMC lopuc]

BSR BS K-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0311212025

ORDER

WP.No.14803 of 2015