Disposed

Pyarasani Sunitha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Feb 2025WP/3982/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenged an E-tender notice issued by HMDA for constructing a box drain, alleging it would grab her plots without due process. The court found the proposed construction did not touch her property and that judicial review in tender matters is limited. It disposed of the writ petition, allowing construction without dispossessing her.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to respondents to proceed with box drain construction pursuant to E-tender notice dated 17.01.2025 without dispossessing petitioner; liberty to both sides to raise grounds in O.S.No.802 of 202

Pyarasani Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3982 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pyarasani Sunitha, W/o late P.Raju, Aged about 57 years, Occ: House-wife, Rl/o H.No.6-4-41. Bholakpur, Secunderabad, Telangana

...PETITIONER

AND

-I

1 The State of Telangana, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Rep. by its- Principal Secretary Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶13

2 The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (Htr/DA), Rep. by its Commissioner. Hyderabad, Telangana

¶14

3 Nagaram Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner Nagaram, MedchatMalkajgiri Telangana 500083

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particutarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the highhanded action of Respondent No.2 publishing the Tender Notification Dl. 21.01 .2025, published in the local newspaper Andhra Jyothi Daily on 22.01 .2025, inviting bids against the private land of the Petitioner herein without following any due process of law and in interfering with life and liberty of the Petitioner besides being peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property which is situated in Plot No.^'|lpart and 12lpar1 in survey No.599 admeasuring 533.25 Sq-yds. or 445.80 Sqmeters, situated at Nagaram village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal Malkalgiri Dist within the limits of Nagaram Municipality as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of the Principle of Natural Justice and violative of Article 21 , 14, 19(1 Xe) and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently set aside the Tender Notification Dt. 21 .01 .2025 and in respect of the petitioners subject property.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition unde" Section^15'1 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleasedto stay} of all further^{proceedingsand actions pursuant to the Tender NotificationDt.} 21 .01 .2025 in respect of the subject^{property of the Petitionerin any mannerby} the Official Respondents herein,^{pending disposal of the mainWrit Petition, in the} interest of^justice.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. LAKSHMI^KANTH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 : ASST.GP FORMUNICIPALADMINISTRATIoN &} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶21

Gounsel forthe Respondent^{No.2: SRI V. NARSIMHA GOUD, SC FORHMDA}

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI^{PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY,} SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

l".^.,

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.3982 of 2025

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the^{petitioner,learned} Assistant Government Pleader^for Municipal Administration and Urban Development^{appearing for} respondent No.1, Sri V. Narsimha^Goud,learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad^Metropolitan Development Authority^{(HMDA)appearing for respondent} No.2 and Sri Putta Krishna^{Reddy,learnedStanding} Counsel for Municipality appearing^{for respondent No'3'} Perused the record.

¶29

Petitioner herein is^{claimingthat she and her} husband had purchased^{open plot Nos. 1 and 12 (parts),} total admeasuring 533 Sq.yds^{in Sy.No.599, situated at} Nagaram Village within^{respondentNo.3-Municipality,} under a registered sale deed^{bearingdocument No'6383} of 199L, dated O1.10.1991.^{Her husband died in August,} 2022. Thereafter, petitioner^{succeededthe said property'}

¶30

KL,J W.P.No.3982 of 2025

¶31

¶32

The dirty Nala/drainage, which is near to the subject property is passing through the subject land making menace for the living ol the petitioner ancl also the adjacent inirabitants. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a suit vide O.S No.802 of 2022 against respondent No.3 seeking mandatory injunction to direct respondent No.3 and its strbordinates, employees etc., to irnmediately solve the problem of plaintiff i.e., flowing of dirty drainage/Nala water into the subject property. The said suit is penciing. There is no interim order.

¶33

During pendency of the said suit, respondent No.2 has issued E- tender notice, dated 17.01.2O25 calling tenders for construction of box drain to divert drainage water through BMR Colony, SLN Colonty, Dayar Kunta and Komati Kunta. Chalienging the said notice, the petitioner filec1 the present writ petition.

¶34

It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are trying to grab the property frorn her under the guise of the construction of

¶35

Kt,,J W.P.No.3982 of 2025

¶36

¶37

-l

¶38

the said box drain without following due procedure laid down under law. With the said apprehension, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the tender notice, dated 17.0i.2025 issued by respondent No.2.

¶39

Whereas, Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned Standing Counsei appearing for respondent No.2, has produced written instructions of respondent No.2, along with the site plan showing the proposal of drainage from Dammaiguda to Nagaram lake. In the said written instructions, there is a specific mention about the proposed construction of box drain for Surplus Course from Dayar Kunta to Komati Kunta (up to HP Petrol Bunk only) on the request of the Member of Parliarnent, Lok Sabha. Respondent No.2 has prepared the plan, and worked out the estimates and invited the tenders by way of issuance of impugned notice, dated 17.01.2025 which was published in newspaper, dated 21 .Ol.2O2S. Respondent No.2 is not at all interfering with the

¶40

*.'

¶41

¶42

KL,J W.P.No.3982 of 2025'

¶43

¶44

petitioner's land. HMDA is taking up the work of the Surplus Course Alignment which was fixed by the Irrigation Department. As per the resolution dated 26.O4.2024 of respondent No.3-Municipality, he has also furnished letter of the Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha acldressed 1.o respondent No.3-Municipality and a-lso the site plan etc.,. The sarne are placed on record.

¶45

The. proposed construction is not touching the property of the petitioner while making construction of the box drain for Surplus Course. Even the petitioner herself filed a suit vide O.S.No.802 of 2022 against respondent No.3 seeking mandatory injunction to resolve the said problem i.e., flowing of dirty drainage/Na-ia water into the subject propertv. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are trlnng to resoive the same.

¶46

The scope ofjudicial review in tender matters is very limited. The petitioner herein failed to make out any case

¶47

to interference with the E-Tender notice, dated 17.O1.2025 -t

¶48

¶49

¶50

KI,..I W.P.No.3982 of²⁰²⁵

In the light of the^{said submissions, this Writ} Petition is disposed of^{grantingliberty to respondent} Nos.2 and 3 to^{proceedwith the constructionof box drain} for Surplus Course from Dayar^{Kunta to Komati Kunta} (up to HP Petrol Bunk only)^pursuant to^{the E-tender} notice, dated 17.O1.2025^{withoutdispossessingthe} petitioner from the subject^{property.However,liberty is} granted to the petitioner and respondent^{Nos.2and 3 to} raise all the grounds^{which they have raised in the} present writ petition in^{O.S.No.8O2of 2022- No costs.}

¶55

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous^{petitions,if aly,}

¶56

¶57

pending in the Writ Petition shall^{stand closed.}

¶58

SD/.T. TIRUMALA^DEVI ASS T REGTSTRAR

¶59

//TRUE COPY//

¶60

ECTION OFFTCER

¶61

To, 1. The Principal Secretary,^{TheState of Telangana, t/unicipal Administration} anO UtOati Developme'nt,^{Secretariat Hyderabad,Tetalgan?,.}

¶62

Z. ine Commissionei,^{The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Autnorlty} (HMDA), in" coiilrissioner, HYderabad, HYderabad, Telangana

¶63

a. (HMDA), in" coiilrissioner, HYderabad,^Nag Telangana^{jri"; Municipality'Nagaram, Medchal-Malkajgiri} Telanoana 500083

¶64

4 o;; iC to SRI s.^{LAKSHMI KANTH,Advocate} toP!91-^-..^-

¶65

d. on; ac i" SRi^{v. runRstHlHncouD, sc F-oR-HMDAIoPUCI} 6. o;; ca i;SRi^{purrn riirsnr.rnnEboV, qqit.yuNiclf4lirYtoPUcI} i. iil cc.iJoi^{FoR MUNIcIPAL ADMlNlsrRATloN & URBAN} ' oEVir-opllENr, Hign Court for the State of Telangana [oUT]

¶66

B. Two CD CoPies BN $\ BS ,,

'--'..

HIGH COURT

KL,J

DATED:1710212025

ORDER

WP.No.3982 of 2025

q'q*-
1rr E STAT e
(
c
o 21 l'1[fl 2025
s
t
t oEspAa r t{€0

¶74

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶75

Y^A ?l 3^y)

Pyarasani Sunitha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pyarasani Sunitha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banoth Susheela, Vs The State of Telangana

Prateek Arya Vs State of Telangana

Chakali @ Sailolla Shobha Vs The State of Telangana

Gurram Chinnolla Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Amer Ansari Vs The State of Telangana

Gurram Laxmikanth Reddy Vs Smt.Jyothi Reddy