Disposed

HussainMohsin PashaMehmood, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026WP/29338/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a municipal corporation order restraining scrap and steel cutting operations due to lack of building permission, the High Court declined to quash the order but kept it in abeyance for four weeks to allow the petitioner to obtain necessary permissions and convert usage.

What did the court decide?

The speaking order dated 21-08-2026 kept in abeyance for four weeks; petitioner directed to obtain building permission and stop operations pending approval.

HussainMohsin PashaMehmood, Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³¹⁸³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 29338 OF 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

Hussain Mohsin Pasha Mehmood, S/o. Late lqbal Hussain, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.4-6-98/3/1 , Baba Nagar, Nacharam, Hyd500076

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep 6y its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, HMDA Complex, Tarnaka, Hyderabad-

¶14

The Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.8, Nacharam, Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation Nacharam.

¶15

f . Chinna Swamy, Age About 55 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.4-6-321181118, Baba Nagar, Nacharam.

¶16

Neknath Manoj Kumar, Age About 55, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.4-6-62l13, Baba Nagar, Nacharam.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the impugned Speaking Order dated 21-08-2026 in File No.98/UC/C|R-8|UZMMC|2026 passed by the Respondent No.3 for Property bearing H.No.4-6-98/3/1 situated at Baba Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad under Circle No. 8, Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation, Medchal Malkajgiri District the same being

¶19

illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14,21 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia

¶20

LA. NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the speaking order dated 21-08-2026 in Fite No.98 tuclctR-BtuZ/MMctzo2r^ passed by the Respondent No.3 for property bearing H.No.4-6-9g/3/1 situated at Baba Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad under circre No. B, Markajgiri Municipar corporation, Medchal Markajgiri District, pending disposar of the writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI SRINIVAS RAO PACHWA, SC FOR MMC

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

u@EEr

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶28

AT HYDERABAD

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VI]AYSEN REDDY

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.29338 of 2O25

¶31

(CNR No.HBHco1o604852026)

¶32

Dated: 08.09.2026

¶33

Between

¶34

Hussain Mohsin Pasha Mehmood

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

And

¶37

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

¶38

ESP'NDENTS

¶39

.RDER:

¶40

Heard learned counsel for tl-re^petitionei- and Mr. Srinivas^Rao

¶41

Pachwa, learned standing counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 - Malakajgiri Municipal Ccrporation^(MMC).

¶42

Speaking order dated 2L.O8.2025 is challenged in this writ petition alleging that the same is issued in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶43

Learned counsel for the^petitioner subrTltted that the speaking order is preceded by a show cause notice dated 20.O7.2026 wherein it was alleged that the^petitioner is operating scrap and steel cutting unit^iI1 a resiientiai^{area causingnoise}

¶44

-l

¶45

pollution, vibrations, public nuisance and threat to residents. There is no allegation that the petitioner made unauthorized construction. Speaking order was passeci going beyonc the contents of the show cause notice. The petitioner had been running the industry and shed in the subject property for the past several areas

¶46

Learned counsel further submitted that in the: reply dated 03.08.2026, submitfed by the petitioner to show caus€r notice dated 20.07 .2026, the petitioner has ciearly stated that all requisite permissions have been obtaineci from ihe concern€d authorities before commerclal operations have been started in the subject property. There are several commerclal shops in the ci)lony and the petitioner is sclectiveiy targeted.

¶47

Learned standing counsel submitted that, ad.nittedly, the petitioner does not have building permission. The sholt cause notice clearly states that the site was inspected and observed that the petitioner made unauthorized construction of shed at H.No.4-698/3/1, Baba Nagar Colony, Nacharam and illegally operating scrap and steel cuttinq unit in a residential area withc,ut obtaining permission from the competent authorities. Hence, e lleging noise pollution and public nuisance, the show cause notice w,:s issued and thereafter, speaking order.

¶48

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reasonable opportunity may be given to the petitioner so that steps can be taken to rectify the violations with regard building construction and usage pointed out in the speaking order dated 27.08.2026 bY protecting the interest of the petitioner for a period of four weeks.

¶50

In the light of the above submission, considering that the petitioner, admittedly, does not have building permission and an allegation is made that scrap and steel cutting unit is being operated by the petitioner in residential area, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the speaking oi-der dated 21.08.2026. However, in the interest of^justice and to enable the petitioner to rectify/obtain building permission and also for change of use, the speaking order dated 2L.OA.2O26 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four (4) weeks from today. Within this time, the petitioner shall take necessary steps to remove/stop the unauthorized building activity and seek^permissio n/conversion of usage by making an appropriate application before the respondents No.2 and 3. As and when such application^is submitted, the same shall be considered by the respondents No.2 and 3 in accordance with law. Until, appropriate permission/ conversion is obtained by the petitioner, no further operations shail be carried out by the petitioner. As this order is passed without entering into the merits of the case, notice to the respondents^No.2and 3^is dispensed with.

¶51

¶52

However, if the respondents No.2 and 3 are aggreved by this order, in any manner, they are at liberty to approech this Court seeklng modification oF this order.

¶53

The writ petition is disposed of. The miscellaneous

¶54

applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as costs.

¶55

SD/- K.BHAVANI^SWAMY ASSIST T REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

rS T N OFFICER

To,

an DeveloPment

¶60

1 The Principal^{Secretary, Municipal Adminislrationand U} Oepartment,^{Secretariai, Hyderabad,S-tateof Telangana'} HMDA ComPlex'

¶61

2 The Commissioner,^{Malkaigiri Munibipal Corporatior'} Tarnaka, HYderabad

¶62

- The Deputy^{Commissioner, Malkajgiri MunicipalCorporation' Circle No 8'}

¶63

f.frcnrram,'Malkajgiri^{Municipal Corporation Nacharam'}

¶64

One CC to^{SRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶65

One CC^{to SRI SRINIVAS RAO PACHWA' SC FOR MM(l [OPUC]}

¶66

Two ccs^{to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV,High court for the state of} Telangana, at^HYderabad [OUT]

¶67

Two CD^CoPies

BSR

PSK

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 08/09/2026

ORDER

AiF. OF
a
>
( qil l$tf
I
$ t
,)
o
ttt + t,E1

¶76

WP.No.29338 of 2026

¶77

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶78

WITHOUT COSTS

¶79

Cr
c -i"
c
e

HussainMohsin PashaMehmood, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

HussainMohsin PashaMehmood, 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