Disposed¶39

Smt. B. Balamani v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Jun 2025WP/15423/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court 2025; W.P. No. 15432 of 2025; Justice K. Sujana; GHMC show cause notice under TS-bPass Act 2020/GHMC Act 1955; ROC No.121/TPS/DC/CIR18/KZ/GHMC/2025; unauthorized construction of two floors; regularization application dated 05.10.2021; explanation dated 31.05.2025 not considered; Article 14 arbitrariness plea; direction to decide regularization application; no-demolition interim restraint; disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to decide the petitioner's regularization application dated 05.10.2021 by considering her explanation to the show cause notice dated 31.05.2025; respondents restrained from demolishing the constructions in the scheduled property meanwhile; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs and miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶39

Smt. B. Balamani Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 30.05.2025 issued by respondent No.3 under the TS-bPass Act 2020/GHMC Act 1955 (ROC No.121/TPS/DC/CIR18/KZ/GHMC/2025) without considering the petitioner's explanation dated 31.05.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances, including that the petitioner had also filed an application dated 05.10.2021 for regularization and had submitted an explanation dated 31.05.2025 to the show cause notice dated 30.05.2025, the Court directed the respondents to decide the regularization application dated 05.10.2021 submitted by the petitioner by considering her explanation to the show cause notice. The Court did not adjudicate the pleaded Article 14 challenge to the validity of the notice.

¶37

Key takeaways

Meanwhile, the respondents were directed not to demolish the constructions in the scheduled property (interim restraint against coercive steps pending decision on the regularization application).ratio¶37
With the above directions, the writ petition was disposed of, with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, were directed to stand closed.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (K. Sujana, J.), W.P. No. 15432 of 2025, disposed of on 04.06.2025. Petitioner, who had constructed two additional floors without permission and applied on 05.10.2021 for regularization, challenged a show cause notice dated 30.05.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle-18, GHMC under TS-bPass Act 2020/GHMC Act 1955 (ROC No.121/TPS/DC/CIR18/KZ/GHMC/2025) as having been issued without considering her explanation dated 31.05.2025, pleading violation of Article 14. Without deciding the validity of the notice, the Court directed the respondents to decide the regularization application dated 05.10.2021 taking into account the petitioner's explanation to the show cause notice, and directed that the constructions in the scheduled property not be demolished meanwhile. Petition disposed of; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdlction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15432 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt.G.Geetha, Wo. G.Narasimha Rao,^{aged about60 years, Occ.Housewife, FUo.} 8-1 -2841 OU 1225, OU Colony, Shaikpet,^Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development,^{Secretariat,Hyderabad.}

¶12

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal^{Corporation,Tank Bund, Rep. by its} Commissioner, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Circle^{18, GHMC, Khaithabad,Hyderabad.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to grant an order, direction or writ more so^{in the natureof Writ of} Mandamus, declaring the action of^{the 3rd respondent issuingthe notice Under} TS-bPass Act 202olcHIVC^{ACT.1955 withRoc.No.',l21lTPS/DC/CIR1B/KZI} GHMC12O2' DT.30-05-2025^{without considering the explanation submittedby the} petitioner dt.31-05-2025 against the notice^{issued by the 3rd respondentNotice} issued Under TS- bPass^{Act2020iGHMC ACT.1955wit} Roc. No. 1 2 1 ff PS/DC/CI Rl 8/KZl^{GHMCI2025 DT.30-05-2025as illegal, arbitrary,} highhanded apart from being^{Violationarticle 14 of constitution of lndia and with}

¶16

a consequent pray()r to set aside the Notice issued UnCer TS-bpass Act 2020/GHMC ACT I 91, ) with Roc.No. 1 2 1 /TPS/DC/C| R 1 Bt KZ GNMCI2O21 DT .3O05-2025 and to d rec{ the respondent No.3 not to take any co':rce steps till the disposal of the wrir crrlition.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition uncer Section 151 cpc praying that in the circurrstances stated in the affidavit filed irr sr.rpport of the petition, the High court may be 1:leased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Notice issued Untie r l-s-bpass Act 2020/GHMC ACT. 1 95ri with Roc.No.i 21irpslDc/ctR lStKZtcHM(>t2O2s DT.3005-2025 issued by tht,: Respondent No. 3.

¶19

Counsel for the Pertitic ner : SRI N.BHAVANI SANKAR

¶20

counsel for the Respc ndent No.1 : AGp FoR MUNtclpAl ADMtNlrsrRATloN AND URBAN DEVELOPMETIT

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3 : SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, S C. FOR GHMC The Court made tl"e following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA

¶23

UIRIT PETITION No.15432 of2O25

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The writ petition is hled seeking the following relief

¶26

"....--to grant an order direction or LL)it ntore so in tLLe nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring the oction of the 3'd respondent issutng the, notice Under 7S bPoss Acl 2020/GHMC ACT, 1955 uith Roc No.121/ TPS/ DC/ CIR 18/ KZ/ GHMC/ 2025 dated 30.05.2025 Luithout consideing the explanatiorL submitted bg the petitioner dqted 31.05A2025 against the notice issued bg the 3rd responderlt Notice issued Under TS b Pctss Act 202O/GI{MC ACT, 1955 wit Roc No.12I/TPS/ DC/ CIRL8/ KZ/ GITMC/ 2025 dated 30.05.2025 as tllegal, arbitrary, high handed apart from being Violation articte 14 of Constitution of India and uith a consequent praqer to set aside the Notice issued Under TSbPass Act 202O/GHMC ACT 1955 Luith Roc No.12I/TPS/DC/CIR18/KZ/GHMC/2025 dated 3O.O5.2O25 and to direct the respondent No.3 not to take anA coerce steps till the dlsposaL of the unt petition. . . . ..'

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner constructed additional two floors in the scheduled property without any permission, and thereafter, she hled an application on 05.1O.2O2 I for regularization of the said constructions in the schedule property. However, '"r.ithout considering the same, the respondents have issued a shor,r, cause notice dated 3O.O5.202.5 and after receipt of the same, the petitioner has submltted an explanation dated 31.05.2025, and without considering the same, as such

¶29

)

¶30

IP o tjj t2 of2025

¶31

rcqllcsrc.d this court to direct the responden s to take a cle:i:-,,, 1 on the application dated OS.lO.2O21tr-r consiclering hr:r-^-;<l rlanation dated 31.OS_2O25 and no1 ro take any CoL'ra I '( riteps

¶32

( rr1 the other hand, learned Standir s Counsel ap]rc. rrrr[, lor respondent Nos.2 and 3 subrnitte(l L.1at Lhere is rr d r,:, tion in W.p.No.l2g}g of 2O25to the Conrrrissioner, GIIM( I 1,1 1ss11. necessary instructions to all t he Deputy Corlr issi,>ners, Assistant City planners ancl Toil-r J ,lanning Oflrccrs t I follou, a consistent procedure, and as =u;h,*they har.e issrrr.d notice to the petitioner and thev h t e not re ccr vr: I r^-r1 explanation from the petitioner rc t re saicl shou ctrus: nolice, as such requested to dismis.; the u.rit petrti:r:

¶33

5 ()rtrx;idering the submissions made bv bo.h the partics itn C material on record, it ls apparen;. th,it the resportd _-rtrs have issued show cause notjc I dated 3O.O5. !l(r:,.i and the pe tioner has submLt ed her expla niLt ir,r dated 31.0S.2O25 lt is noteworth_r thi Lt the IJctrtione- i,lso filed an application dated OS. 10.202 1 for regularizillir)t). Hence, considering the fac.s and ctrculnstirn(.e s of the case, this Court is inclined l; rlirect the re sito r:1,,nls to decide the application datecl 05. :t:).2O2I

¶34

¶35

¶36

.lA.s../ tt l, 'o 15132 ol )0li

¶37

submitted by the petitioner by considering the explanation of the petitioner to the show cause notice. Meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to demolish the constructions in the schedule property

¶38