Allowed

Ramreddy Chicken Market v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC23 Jul 2025WP/2951/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A chicken-shop owner challenged a municipal notice ordering him to vacate his premises and shift to a newly built integrated market. Finding no statutory provision or Section 146(3) public notice authorising forced relocation, the court held the notice violated the petitioner's Article 19(1)(g) right to trade and set it aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 24-01-2023 issued by respondent No.2 was set aside; writ petition allowed without costs.

Ramreddy Chicken Market Vs The State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

I I l i ! t ti t i II T I 1

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF IN THE HIGH COURTFORTHE STATEOF} TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY^{THIRD DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR}

¶7

WRIT PETITIO^N NO:2951^{OF 2023}

¶8

Between:

¶9

RamreddyChickenMarket,RepbyitsproprietorVRavinderReddA,Door r.io. r z- io+tz, Opp^{Subhash Chindra Bose StatueMain road, Toopran} Village, fi/edak District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary,tvlunicipal} . norinliiliion ind"Urban^{Dbvelbpment D6partment, Secretariat, Hyderabad}

¶13

2 The Toopran Municipality,^{Rep. by its Commissioner, Toopran, Medak} District.

¶14

3 Raghavendra Goud,^{Chairman, Toopran Municipal Council, Toopran, Medak} District.

¶15

4 Sri. Mohan, Commissioner,^{Tooprantr,4unicipalCouncil, Toopran' Medak} District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate^{writ, order or direction more parttcularlyone in} the nature of^{writ of lvlandamusdeclaringthe notice of the 2nd respondent dated} 24- 01- 2023 to^{removethe businessat premisesDoor No. 12- 10412opp} Subhash chandra^{Bose statue,MainRoad,Toopran,lvledak District, as illegal} null, void and arbitrary.

¶18

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{()ir(;umstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Cru( may be pleased to suspend the Notice dated 24-01-2023 issued by the 2rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶22

Between:

¶23

The Toopran tt4unicipality, Rep. by its Commissioner,^'loopran, [,4edak District.

¶24

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2

¶25

AND

¶26

1 Ramreddy Chicken lt4arket, Rep. by its proprietor V. Ravinder Reddy, Door No. 12- 10412, Opp Subhash Chandra Bose StatL e lvlain road, Toopran Village, Medak District.

¶27

2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by rts Principa liecretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, S;ecretariat, Hyderabad.

¶28

3 Raghavendra Goud, Chairman, Toopran [t/unicipal Coun,:il, Toopran, Medak District.

¶29

Sri tt/lohan, Commissioner, Toopran t\rlunicipal Council, Toopran, [/edak District.

¶30

(Respondents 3 & 4 not necessary partiers to this l.A)

¶31

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERSi RESPONDENTS 1,3&4

¶32

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r:irc.umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Corrt may be pleased to vacate the status rluo orders granted on 0210212023 in W.P No 2951 of 2023 in the interests of^justrce.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.DURGA PRASAD

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI M.RAM MOHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent No.3&4 :

¶37

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶38

¶39

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶40

W.P.No.295L of 2023

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, iearned Government Pleader for MA&UD appearing for respondent No.1, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality appearing for respondent No.2, and perused the record.

¶43

However, having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petition and thc nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to the respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are arrayed as Eo Nomine, is not necessary for adjudication of the present writ Petition

¶44

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is an entity, represented by its proprietor/ owner i.e., the petitioner herein; that he is doing business in sale of chicken by obtaining trade license from the 2"d respondent-Municipality; that on 16.1O.2022, the 2nd and 3.d respondents along with lady staff of the 2"d respondent came to the petitioner's shop and sea-led it on the ground that he cannot undertake business in private premises and has to shift the business to the new municipal

¶45

¶46

I Ii I t I i I I

¶47

integrated market constructed by the 2",1 res;pondent at a distance of 1k.m., from the petitioner's shop; that in the new municipal integrated market constructed by tLLe 2"d respondent with three floors, the space for chicken market is shou,n in the 2"d floor, which is not feasible; and that on t[:e 2"d respondent and its staff resorting to the aforesaid act, he had approached this Court and filed a writ petition uide W.P.No.'tO566 of 2022, which was disposed of by this Court on 11 .11.'.'.O'.22.

¶48

Petitioner further conte r-rds that on tl- e aforesaid '*'rit petition being disposed of by this CouI t directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to do busi ress in his^shop, the 3.d and 4th respondents became enimiczrl lorvards him^and erected dustbins in front of the petitioller's shop, and also started dumping municipal waste in front of his shop, thereby threatening the petitioner to close his shop

¶49

It is the further case of the petitioner thrrt the 3nr and 4th respondents started dumping municipal wastc everydaf in front of the petitioner's shop and thereafter, issued^notice, dt.24.OI .2023, without bontaining any number or seal of^the municipalit5z directing the petitioner to vacate the shop bearing

¶50

¶51

municipal No.l2-lO4/2 by giving (07) days time, failing which the petitioner was informed that further action will be taken as per the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9 (for short 'the Act').

¶52

It is the further case of the petitioner that the 3rd and 4th respondents thereafter have called him to the Collector's Office and threatened him to close the business

¶53

Petitioner further contends that he has been running his business in the said shop since 2010 and that the respondents on the pretext of having constructed an integrated market cannot force the petitioner to shift his business to the said new market constructed by them by issuing the impugned notice, dt.24.O1.2023, while there are (10) similar such shops existing/running within the proximity of the petitioner's shop, thus, the action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal, null & void, and arbitrary.

¶54

Counter affidavit on behalf of the 2"d respondent is filed. By the counter afhdavit, the 2"a respondent while denying the writ averments would contend that the government had

¶55

¶56

t. ! I i I ! I j

¶57

constructed an integrated municipal market^complexwith modern facilities at a cost of Rs.l1 Crores;^{that since,the} existing veg., and non-veg., markets are^{situ ated in a small} piece of land ald is very much congested^and i;^{obst.ructing the} free flow of traffic, a1l the traders and^{vendors, u')ro used to sell} in the existing old market, have been^{allottr:dshops inthe} newly constructed integrated municipal^{marke tcomplex;and} that many of the shop keepers^{have shiftedtheir business in} the new market complex.

¶58

¶59

g . By the counter affidavit it is^{furtherstated that the} petitioner, who is running chicken shop^{at the old market} place, was allotted shop bearing^{No.2O inht: new market} complex and was asked to^{shift his busint:ss;to the shop} allotted to him in the new^{complex; that for :ht: reasonsbest} known, the petitioner is not^{u'iliing to shift hi:; businessto the} new market complex; and approached^{this Courtby filing writ} petition uide W.P.No.40566 of 2022.

¶60

10.' By the counter affrdavit it^{is further stzLted that the 2"d} respondent had issued notice,^{dt.24.O1,.2023,directingthe} petitioner to vacate the existing^{premises bea-rng shop No 12-}

¶61

¶62

lO4 12 and shift the business to the shop allotted in the integrated market complex, and that the petitioner instead of shifting his business by cooperating with the local public authority, has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, by making false and frivolous allegations against the respondents.

¶63

By the counter a-ffidavit it is contended that the claim of the petitioner of the respondents being enimical towards the petitioner have erected dustbins and dumping municipal waste in front of his shop and that the petitioner being called to the Collector's Oflice ald threatened him to close his business, are all false and incorrect statements

¶64

12 . By the counter a,ffid avit, it is also contended that the respondents are not dumping any municipal waste in front of the petitioner's shop and in fact there exists a system of collecting waste material from the shops by the 2nd respondent's vehicles regularly; that the petitioner instead of handing over the said chicken waste to the waste-coliectors deployed by the 2"d respondent, is throwing waste in public places, which has resulted in the 2"a respondent receiving

liJ,

complaints from the residents of the ioca-litv t o take action against the petitioner herern

¶69

By the counter it is further stated that the claim of the petitioner of there being more than (10) shops, rrho u,ere doing the same business in the locality arrd the said shop ou,ners not being asked to shift to the new integrated market complex and the petitioner only being singied out is factualh' incorrect, as all the shop o<sup>/ners rvere also asked to shift their business to the respective shops allotted to them in the new crrrLplex, not only the petitioner did not acknowledge the list of the allotment of shop to him and on the other hand is instigating the others not to shift to the new complex

¶70

By the counter affidavit it is further stated ',hat since, the new complex is constructed by incurring h uge expenditure from the State Exchequer lor the benefit of t-re public, if the petitioner does not shift his business along u,:th others to the new complex, the very purpose of constructing the same will be defeated and the public will be left to their fate ol incon',,enience in the old market; and that the contention of tf e petitioner that

¶71

¶72

in the new complex, chicken market is shown in the 2.d floor, is lncorrect.

¶73

The 2na respondent by the counter affidavit thus contend that the impugned notice, dt.24.Ol.2O2O, issued to the petitioner is strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act; and that the petitioner instead of cooperating with the local municipal authorities had approached this Court by the present petition, and thus, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition

¶74

I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

¶75

At the outset, though the respondents-authorities, by the counter-affidavit, have claimed of having constructed a new integrated municipal market complex for the convenience of the public and as such, the petitioner being directed to shift his business to the shop allotted to him being shop No.2O in the said complex, it is not shown to this Court any provisions under the Act conferring such power on the respondentsauthorities to force a person to do business only in a particular place.

i. ,-

{

Further, if only the 2.a respondent inte'rded to regulate the business being conducted in any particular place, the said authority ought to have issued a public notir:e by exercising po\vers under Section 146(3) of the Act

¶80

Though the 2nd respondent hled his counter affidavit, there is no whisper about the 2nd respondent having issued any public notice in exercise of power under Section 146(3) of the Act either prohibiting or regulating sale ol itnv article or animals on an)' public road or place or part therer>f

¶81

Further, the 2"d respondent by the counler alfidavit filed, though had claimed that the petitioner throwinq rvaste in public places, for r.l hich the respondents-authorities having received complaints from residents of the locality, the <:o1-ries of the (02) complaints said to have been received by them as alnexed to the counter affidavit, though would shorv tht'^s ame as dated Ol.ll.2023 and 02.l)..2023, the stamp ol receipt affixed thereon shou,s the sarne as having bet:n received on 01.17.2023, rvhich itself goes to show that th,,' respondents in order to justify their actions got the said complair ts filed

/. a I I I l

I I

I ,

2I . Further, if the petitioner is throwing waste in public places, nothing prevented the respondents-authorities from initiating action against the petitioner by issuing notice to him warranting initiation of action.

¶87

Mere claim of the respondents of the Government having constructed a complex by spending huge amounts, would not by itself confer any power on the authority to force a trader, like the petitioner, to shift his business from the existing place to the newly constructed integrated municipal market complex without following due process of law i.e., regulating carrying of such trade in a particular area by issuing a public notice after considering the objections filed thereto.

¶88

Further, it is also to be noted that the petitioner by the present Writ Petition though had specihcally averred that the shop for chicken market being allotted in the 2nd floor of the new complex, the respondents by the counter affidavit except denying the said statement made by the petitioner did not mention as to in which floor of the complex, shop No.2O allotted to the petitioner is situated nor has mentioned the shop

¶89

¶90

I I II

¶91

numbers which are^{allotted to similarlyplacedpersons dealing} with chicken business.

¶92

Thus, this Court^{is of the view that the rrction of the 2"d} respondent in issuing^{the impugnednotice c'alJingupon the} petitioner to shift his business^{to the integraled municipal} complex forcibly, is^{cleariy withoutlollowin11 the procedure} prescribed uncier the Act, thereby^{infringing the right of the} petitioner to carry on^{trade guaranteedunder} '\rlicle^{19(1)(g) of} the Constitution ol^India.

¶93

Accordingly, the^{WritPetition isallorved andthe} impugned notice,^{dl.24.Ol.2023, issued by tht: 2"d respondent,} is set aside. No^{order as to costs.}

¶94

Consequentiy,^{miscellaneous petitions, ifany, pending}

¶95

sha,ll stand closed.

¶96

SD/.^{L. VTJAYA LAXMI} Aff, IS ANT REGISTRAR \ I/TRUE^COPY/I ECTION^OFFICER

¶97

To,

¶98

3[1',yJ:""Deveropment

¶99

';:"o51'*33fl^{'.',:iJ"Ji?;Y"',#15:L#'TU'"',:":il"fi}

¶100

';:"o51'*33fl^{'.',:iJ"Ji?;Y"',#15:L#'TU'"',:":il"fi} 2.^{The Commissioner' Toopran Municipality'Toopran' t\ledak District'} 1 The Chairman'^{Raghavendra Goud' ToopranMunicip al louncil'Toopran'} " tvledak District'

¶101

utt

¶102

The Commissioner, Toopran lVlunicipal Council, Sri. Mohan, Toopran, Medak District.

¶103

One CC to SRI K.DURGA PRASAD, Advocate. [OPUC]

¶104

Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADIVN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶105

One CC to SRI IV RAM tvlOHAN REDDY, SC [OPUC]

¶106

Two CD Copies.

BSK

GJP

f I

I { I i I ( I ! II

II I i

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310712025

ORDER

,4f-. ,, -1E* .t i^. ,
./ ,-t' '
(i
I
[3 sEP ?ffi
',' ,,/
,-,'-n, ,,^. .;,.;r)y'
,..-:...:
..,>--

¶116

WP.No.2951 of 2023

¶117

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶118

\r
1
( w{

Ramreddy Chicken Market v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramreddy Chicken Market v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murali Krishna Kona Vs The State of Telangana

Krishna Nagar Plots Owners Welfare Society Vs The State of Telangana and 8 Others

Thota Ragini Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Sanem Krishna Goud Vs State of Telangana

Mr. Ghanshyam Das Karwa Vs The State of Telangana

Pasham Narsimlu Vs The State of Telangana