Disposed

Mohammad Salman v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026WP/29424/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained a writ petition challenging a municipal refusal of building permission. The court disposed of the petition directing the respondent to consider the fresh application, afford personal hearing opportunities, and decide within 21 days, keeping the show-cause notice in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 to consider the building permission application dated 02.09.2026 and pass orders with personal hearing within 21 days; show-cause notice kept in abeyance.

Mohammad Salman Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶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 TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 29 4240F 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohammad Salman, S/o Gouse Mohammad, Age. 35 years, occ. Business R/o. H.No. 14-2-16, Bellampalli Basthi, Bellampalli, Mancherial District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

2 The Commissioner, Bellampalli Municipality, Mancherial District.

¶14

J The Town Planning Officer, Bellampalll Municipality, Mancherial District.

¶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 any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned order vide Roc. No.G'tA/V19/28t2026 dated Z|.OB.2026 pending consideration of petitioner's application for building permission dated 25.0g.2026 as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, without following principles of natural justice and violative of Articles^'14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly set-aside the impugned order passed by Respondent No.2 vide Roc. No.G l/Wl 9/2812026 dated 25.08.2026 pending consideration of petitioner,s application for building permission dated 25.0g.2026 in the interest of justice

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order passed by Respondent No.2 vide Roc. No.G'1/VV19/2812026 by dated 25.08 2026 by considering the petitioner's application for building permission dated 25.08.2026 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHAMMAD IMRAN

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN OEVELOPMENT

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} ATHYDERABAD

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE^{B. VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶25

WRIT PETITON No.29424OF 2026

¶26

CNR No.IIBHC 0106081i²⁰²⁶

DATE:08-09-2026

Befween:

Mr. Mohammad Salman

... Petitioner

AND

The State ofTelangana

¶33

Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration^{and UrbanDevelopment Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad,^{and others}

¶34

. Respondents

¶35

ORDER:(ORAL)

¶36

Heard Mr. Mohammad Imran,^{leamed counsel for the} petitioner and Mr. Putta Krishna^{Reddy, leamed standing counsel} for Municipalities, appearing^{for respondentNos.2 and3 '}

¶37

Leamed standing^{counselfor respondentNos'2 and 3 placed} on record written^{instructionsand submittedthat petitioner} submitted reply dated^{25.08.2026 to the impugned noticedated} 25.08.2026. Petitioner was^advised to^{apply for building} permission through BuildNow portal. Accordingly,^petitioner submitted application on 02.09.2026 seeking building^permission,

¶38

¶39

which is presently under verification and being processed. It is further stated that appropriate orders will be passed ln accordance rvith applicable rules and regulations upon completion of prescribed verifi cation

¶40

ln the light of written instructions of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and submissions of learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to consider the bui lding permission application of the petitioner dated 02.09.2026 and pass orders, in accordance with law, by affording opportunitl' of personal hearing to the petitioner, and all other concerned/interested persons, within a period of twenty one (2 1) days from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order. Until such exercise is completed, show-cause notice vide Roc.No.Gl/W19/28

¶41

12026 dated 25.08.2026 shall be kept in abeyance. No costs

¶42

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶43

pending in the u rit petition stand closed.

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

Sd/. A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

'fo,

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶50

The Commissioner, Beliampalli Municipality, Mancherial District

¶51

3 The Town Planning Officer, Bellampalli Mu;icipality, Mancherial District. 4 One CC to SRt. MOHAMMAD TMRAN Advocaie tOpUCt

¶52

- Two oEvef-oprvf CCs to ENT^GP ,High^{FOR Court MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION for the State of Telangana, at Hyderab4-.tg-yf.lAND URBAN} o. On" CC to SRI.^{P-UTTN TRISHNA REDDY, SC FORMUNICIPALITIES} loPUcl

¶53

Two CD CoPies

BM PSR

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 08/09/2026

ORDER

WP.No.29424 ot 2026

1 H E s TA
t
o
(J r0 StP ffi oz
.<br>* oESPAIC

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

g.r,
'/b
ro[1

Mohammad Salman v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Salman 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases