Disposed

Mangali Ganesh, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Sept 2025WP/28171/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against threatened demolition of a hair-cutting bunk shop near NH-9 at Sadashivpet. Since an identical issue was decided by a Division Bench common order dated 06.11.2023 in W.P.No.3249 of 2010 quashing similar notices with liberty to act per law, this Court disposed of the petition in those terms.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed in terms of common order dated 06.11.2023 in W.P.No.3249 of 2010; no costs.

Mangali Ganesh, Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

[³³⁸³ l

*-$)

r4!;:i:l

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

¶5

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

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

: i'"

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LA)(MI NARAYANA ALISHETry

¶9

WRIT PETITION O:28171OF 2015

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mangali Ganesh, S/o Late M. Buchiramulu, Aged about 55 yrs, Occ Business, R/o Sadishivpet, Sangareddy, Medak District, Telagana State.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, through its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration, Having office at Telangana State Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Commissioner, Sadashivpet Municipality, having office at Sadashivpet Town, Medak District.

¶16

The District Collector, Medak District, Having office at District Collector Office, Sangareddy, Medak District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order, direction or a writ particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in attempting to demolish the petitioners bunk admn 10X10 feet, under the name as Ganesh Hair Cutting, at a distance of nearly 100 feet from the national highway No. 9, Opp Bus Stand at Sadishivpet, Medak District demolition of petitioner NO.1s bunk is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural^justice and-Municipal Laws. Consequently, this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to follow due process of law if they have got any right, title or claim in respect of petitioners bunk admn 10X10 feet, underthe name as Ganesh HairCutting, at a distance of nearly 100 feet from the national highway No. 9, Opp Bus Stand at

¶19

Sadishivpet, tVledak District and pass any other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice.

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 11015(WPMP. NO: 36546 OF 2015)

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file,d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the responden':s not to demolish 16s:petitioner's bunk admn. 10 x 10 feet, under the name as Ganesh Hair Cutting at a distance of nearly 100 feet from the National Highway No.^g, Opp. Bus pass

¶22

Counsel for thr: Petitioner : SRI MOHAMMAD ADNAN

¶23

counsel for thr: Respondent No. 1: Gp FoR McpL ADMN-URBAN DEV

¶24

counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : SRI purrA KRISHNA REDDY, (sc FoR MUNtCtPAL)

¶25

Counset for ther Respondent No. 3: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court mad,e the following: ORDER

';tFiiss*'",.

\ \

til

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALTSHETTY

¶31

WP.No.28l7l of2015

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in attempting to demolish^the petitioner's bunk admeasuring l0 x l0 feet, under the name 'Ganesh Hair Cutting' situated at a distance of nearly I00^{feet from} National Highway No.9, Opp Bus-stand, Sadishivpet, Sangareddy, Medak District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Municipal laws.

¶34

Heard Sri Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel for^petitioner, and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

¶35

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that notices^issued to various adjoining bunk owners were challenged by way of Writ Petitions, vide Writ Petition No.3249 of 20[0 and batch and the said Writ Petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench^{of this} Court vide common order dated 06.1I .2023, by following^the order passed in Writ Petition No.15035 of 2009. The operative portion of

¶36

¶37

LNA, J WP.No.2|l7l o1'2015

¶38

corrmcrn order passed in writ petition.No.3249 of 2010 is as

¶39

under:-

¶40

"In view of the order passed by us today in Writ petition No. I 503 5 of 2009, the tmpugned notices dated 30.01.2010 are quashed. However, tt is open for the authorities to take action against the petitioners tn accordance with law. Liberty ,s reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them in law, in case the petitioners are aggrieved by any order which may be passed by the Collector."

¶41

Slince the issue raised in the present writ Petition is squarely covere<l b), th" common order dated 06.1 1 .2023 passed in writ Petitiorr No.3249 of 2010 and barch, this writ Petition is disposed qf in terns of the said common order.

¶42

Ir4iscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

No cost.s

tt \

To,

SD/- M. JAVI'AHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/

¶47

N OFFICER 1 The Principal Secretary Municipal^Admini office at Telangana State liecretariat, The State^{of Telangana} ,^Hyd

¶48

The C;ommissioner, Sadashivpet^{Municipality, having office at Sadashivpet} :

¶49

Town, Medak District.^:

¶50

The District Collector, Medak District, Having office at District Collector Office, Sanga reddy, Medak District.

¶51

One CC to SRl. MOHAMMAD ADNAN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

*-etv&L

¶53

--.ErEtE..= '.:.i):.'-"-|6

¶54

|5l
6'|onecctoSRt.purrAKR|SHNA REDDY,(scFoRMUNtctpAL
TwoCCstoGPFORMCPLADMN-URBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof
Telangana.IOUTI| |---|---| |7'|TwoCCstoGP FORREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana.
lourl| |8.|TwoCDCopies
(Alongwithcopyoforderdated06,11 -2023inw.p.No.3249of2010)| |PVL
GJP
Ptnq
._*||

HIGH CICURT

\ \

DATED:03/09/2025

I t

ORDER

WP.No.;28171 of 2015

'THE S
(")
i 6 f'i,lff,#_.
*

¶62

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

WITHOIJT COSTS

( gut>a-

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V

¶68

4259 1 1 1 1 1708(}- 17113. 17136- | 7314- t7S5,4- 1 and 1772() of 2()1()

¶69

coMMoN ORDER ! @er the Hon'bre the chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

¶70

Mr. Venkatram Reddy Mantur, Ms. A.padma, Mr. P.Pandu Ranga Reddy, Mr. p. Venkat Reddy and Mr. Mohammad Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶71

Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government pleader for Revenue and Mr. B.Jagan Madhav Rao, learned. Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and urban Development Department for the official respondents.

¶72

In view of the order passed by us today in W.P.No.15035 of 2OO9, the impugned notices dated 30.01.2010 are quashed. However, it is open for the authorities to take action against the petitioners in

iI f ,

II ! ! : 1 j

I I II I

-.2

accordance with law. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them ;n law, in case the petitioners are aggrieved by any ord.er^rvhich may be passed by the Collector.

¶78

:t. With the aforesaid liberty, Writ Petitions stand

¶79

disposed of.

¶80

Ivliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶81

ALOK ARADHE, C.'

¶82

N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

¶83

Date: 06,1 1.2023 KL/m.yk

Mangali Ganesh, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangali Ganesh, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Venkat Narayana Vs The State of Telangana

Mir Baquar Hussain Razvi , Parvez Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

B.Balraj S/o.B.Jaggaiah, Vs The Managing Director

Smt. Aruna Ben, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Banda Balanarasimha, Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

B. Krishna Murthy, Vs The State of Telangana.rep by its Principal Secretary to