Allowed

M/s. Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026WP/29840/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a demolition speaking order passed without proper service of notice. The Court set aside the order, directed the issuance of a fresh show-cause notice, and maintained status quo while affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned speaking order set aside; fresh show-cause notice directed; status quo maintained pending inquiry; opportunity of hearing to be afforded within four weeks.

M/s. Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Vs The State… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³¹⁸³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶4

TUESDAY,^{THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY SIX}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION^{NO:29840 oF 2026}

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Patil^{Rail lnfrastructure Pvt Ltd, A companyregistered.un!e1 the} Companies^{nct, f gs6, iG registeredand orporateoffice at The Safe Legend'} 6-3-123g18t111,^{n"*f, f"i'u",R'j An"un Road' Somajiguda'Hyderabad}

¶10

1. RepresenieJ^{Uy itt tr'l"Oif''lFasteningPlant HeadOperations} Dept. Mr.^{Beerendra Babu'C/o Gore Lal}

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND '1 . The State of Telangana, Rep^{by its Principal Secretary} YYljg'p'' Administration^{rnd U;6;; be'eioprnentDepartment SecretariatBuildings'} HYderabad'

¶13

The^{Yellampet Municipality, Medchal Malkajgiri District,office of Yellampet} -I;Pitchool, Yellampei- sot+ot' Rep bv its Municipal

¶14

Municipality,^eesioe Commissioner

¶15

Hyderabad^{Metropolitan DevelopmentAuthoritv swarna JayatiComplex} Sanjeeva neoov^{Naga;*Sr.iniuasl Nagar Ameerpet Hyderabad' 500038 Rep} bY its MetroPolitan^Commissioner

¶16

chief Planning^{otricer Hl,lon, swarna Jayanti complex, sanjeevaReddy} N;g;t, Srinivaia^{rtr"g;r.A;""ipet, Hyderabad - 500038'Telangana' lndia'}

¶17

The State^{ot feraiJana,n"p oV its Principal Secretary lndustriesand} Commerce^{Secretariat Buildings' Hyderabad'}

¶18

Commerce^{Secretariat Buildings' Hyderabad'}

¶19

1. G. Ramarajr'^{S/o i:'P;;;'J'-ii"i'Aged about 56 vears' R/o H No..4-59'} Kompally^{Village, Dundigat, CanOimaisamma [Mandal'MedchalMalkajgiri} District^{Telangana State 5001 00}

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under^{Atlicle226 of the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybepleased toissueaWritinthenatureofMandamusdeclaringtheSpeakingorderbearingno. 156/TPS^fLPT2026^{dated 31.08'2026 (receivedon 03092026)'passed by the} Respondent^{No.2 as being arbitrary,illegal' in violationof principlesof natural} justice, in contravention^{of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ln re'}

¶22

Respondent No.2 as being^{arbitrary,illegal, in violationof principlesof natural} justice, in contravention of orders passed by the Hon'ble supreme^{court in ln re.} Directions in the matter of^{demolitionof structures, 2025(5) SCC 1, and} unconstitutional and consequently^{set asidethe speaking order dated 31.08.2026.}

¶23

LA. NO: 1OF 2026

¶24

Petition under Section^{151CPC praying thatin the circumstances statedin the} affidavit fited in support^{of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto suspend} the operation of the speaking^{orderbearingno. '156ffPSrYLPr2026 dt. 31.08.2026} received c,n 03.09 2026,^{passed by the Respondent No. 2, and thereby directthe} Respondents not to take^{any steps towards demolition of the Petitioners lndustrjal} sheds/stru ctures existing^{on the property bearing Municipal No.3-18'1 , situated at} Sy No. 17'9lC and Sy No^{180/Bof Yellampet Village,MedchalMandal, Medchal-} Malkajgiri l)istrict

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIA. VENKATESH SENIOR COUNSEL FOR} SRI. MOHAMMED OMER FAROOQ

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.^{1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION} AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY,} SC FOR MUNIGIPALITIES

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 3&4:SRI V. NARSIMHA GOUD'} SC FOR HMDA

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.S: AGP FOR INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE}

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.6:--

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

IN THE IIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶33

THE TIONOI.IRABLE SRI JUSTICE^{B. VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶34

WRIT PETITON N0.29840 0F²⁰²⁶ CNR No.IIBHC0t06l77l20

¶35

DATE:08-09-2026

¶36

Between:

¶37

IWs. Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt.^Limited

¶38

... Petitioner

¶39

AND

¶40

The State of Telangana Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and^{Urban Development Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others

¶41

.. ResPondents

¶42

ORDER:^(ORAL)

¶43

Heard Mr. A. Venkatesh,^{learned senior counsel, appearing} for Mr. Mohd. Omer Farooq,^{leamed counselfor the petitioner,} Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy,^{leamed standing counselfor} Municipalities for respondent^{No.2 and Mr. V. Narsimha Goud,} leamed standing counsel for HMDA, for^{respondentNos.3 and 4.}

¶44

Learned senior counsel appearing for the^petitioner submitted that^{impugned speakingordervideNoticeNo.156/TPS} NLPT|2026^{dated31.08.2026} was^passed by^{respondent No.2}

¶45

f,-I

¶46

)

¶47

BVR.J W.P. No.29840 of 2026

¶48

without ser.vice of notice on the petitioner in^{violationof judgment} of the Supreme Couft in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structuresr. Thus, the impugned speaking^orderis liable to be set aside.

¶49

Learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that show-cause notice dated 22.07.2026 was sought to^{be served on the} petrtioner, but the concemed person did not receive the said notice. Hence, shoi.r'-cause notice was affixed on the property of the petitioner and subsequently impugned speaking order dated 31.08.2026 u,as passed

¶50

I-eamed senior counsel appearing for the petitioner srrbrnitted that permission was granted by the IINIDA vide Proc No.MED0l0000828252/IBP/TSiPASSftilttfDN2021 dated

¶51

11 .2022 fbr construction of industrial building on the subject property. l'hus. the action of respondent No.2 in passing speaking order is illegal and without proper verification of records.

'2ot-s^{rs )s( ct}

a---

BVR,J W.P. No.29840 of 2026

¶56

In the light of the^{proceedingsof the HMDAdated}

¶57

-.11.2022^{and the contention of leamed senior counsel for the} petitioner that show-cause notice dated^{22.07.2026 was not served} on the petitioner, to^{meet the ends of justice, the writ petition is} allowed, setting aside the^{impugned speaking order passedby} respondent No.Z vide Notice^{No.156/TPS/YLPT/2026dated} 31.08.2026. Respondent^{No.2is directedto issue fresh show-cause} notice to the petitioner and^{the petitioner is directed to submit} explanation to the same,^{within a period of one (1) week thereof'} On receipt of such explanation,^{respondent No.2 is directed to} consider the same and^{pass orders, in accordancewith law, by} affording opportunity^{ofhearing to the petitioner,respondent No.6} and all other concemed/interested^{persons,within a period of four} (4) weeks thereof. Until such exercise^{is completed, status quo,} obtaining as on today,^{shall be maintained.}

¶58

As this order is^{passedwithoutenteringinto the merits,} notice to respondent^{No.6 is dispensedwith. If respondentNo'6 is}

¶59

¶60

BVR,J W.P. No.29840 of 2026

¶61

in anywav aggrieved by this order, he is at liberty to approach this

¶62

Court seeking modification of this order. No order as to costs.

¶63

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶64

pending in the writ petition stand closed.

¶65

//TRUE COPY//

¶66

Sd/. A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /'

¶67

SECTION OFFICER

¶68

To,

¶69

.1 . The Principal secretary Municipal Administration and urban Development Department Secretariat^{Buildings' T S., Hyderabad}

¶70

Ther Yellampet Municipality,^{Medchal Malkalgiri District, office of Yellampet} Municipality, Beside^{MPP School, Yellampet- 501401, Rep by its Municipal} Commissioner

¶71

Ther Metropolitan^{commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development} Authority, S*rrna Jayati^{Complex Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar SrinivasaNagar} Ameerpet Hyderabad, 500038

¶72

The Chief Planning Officer^{HMDA, Swarna Jayanti Complex, SanjeevaReddy} Nagar, Srinivasa Nagar,^{Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500038, Telangana, lndia}

¶73

ThJ^princrpal Secretary^{lndustriesand Commerce Secretariat Buildings,} T S Hyderabad

¶74

One CC to SRI^{MOHAMMED OMER FAROOQ Advocate} [OPUC]

¶75

One CC to SRI V^{NARSIMHA GOUD, SC FORHMDA} [OPUC]

¶76

One CC to SRl.^{PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES} loPUCl

¶77

TWC iCS tO GP^{FOR MUNICIPALADMINISTRATIONAND URBAN} DEVELOPMENT ,High^{Court for the State of Telanganaat Hyderabad[OUT]}

¶78

10 Two CCs to GP^{FOR INDUSTRIESAND COMMERCE,High Courtfor the} State of Telangana,^{at Hyderabad} [OUT]

¶79

1 1 . Two CD Copies

BM PSR

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810912026

ORDER

WP.No.29840 of 2026

-( HE 5IA
t
3 5 11 sEP zozo
P2o
A
* ntSpATcti *

¶88

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶89

\.,^Crflcl C

M/s. Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases