Disposed

P.Sunitha Reddy v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Sept 2026WP/30304/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition challenging the respondents' action in attempting to demolish an unauthorized structure and disconnect power/water without prior notice. The court maintained status quo for 14 days as speaking orders were passed without service of notice in violation of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintaining order for 14 days; writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

P.Sunitha Reddy Vs State of Telangana — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 30304 OF 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

P.Sunitha Reddy, W/o. Sri P.Anand Reddy, aged about 48^years, Occ.Housewife, R/o.H.No.1 4-1 -21 1 lBNl167, Plot No.1 67, Sy.No.1 007, The Bhagyanagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited, GHMC, Kukatpally, tt/edchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Serilingampally, Hyderabad, rep. by its Municipal Commissioner.

¶14

Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Circle-S2, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, rep. by its Deputy Commissioner.

¶15

Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Circle-S2, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, rep. by its Assistant City Planner.

¶16

Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional Engineer (Operation) Kondapur, Sub-Division, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶17

Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, rep. by its Assistant Engineer (Operation) Allapur, Kondapur, Sub-Division, MedchalMalkajgiri District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 a writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to demolish and

¶20

disconnect the power supply service connection, by way of interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner the house property bearing H.No.14-1-21 1/BN/167 Plot No.167, admeasuring 500 Sq. yards, Sy.No.1007, The Bhagyanagar co-operative Housing Society Limited, Kukatpaily, Medchar-Markajgiri District, without issuir-rg any prior notice and folowing due procedure as contemprated under Iaw, is iIegar, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutiona r, vioration of principres of naturar jus;tice and arso contrary to the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955 and rures made thereunder, and consequenry direct the respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over subject property, without following due procedure as contemplated under law.

¶21

l.A. NO:1OF 2026

¶22

Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps of demorition/disconnection of power r;uppry of house property of the petitioner bearing H.No.1 4-1-211r,,Nr167, prot Irlo.'167, admeasuring 500 Sq. yards, Sy,No..1007, The Bhagyanagar Co_operative llousing society Limitec, Kukatparry, Medchar-Markajgiri District, without forowing clue procedure as conternprated under raw, pending disposar of the writ petition.

¶23

Oounsel for the petitioner: SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED eUADRt

¶24

counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FoR McpL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶25

C:ounsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, SG FOR CMC

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.5 & 6: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDy, SC FOR TGSPDCL

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{B. VITAYSENREDDY}

¶30

PETIT No,3 f20 ( NRN BHCO 64A20 )

Dated: 1O.O9. o26

Between

P. Sunitha Reddy

...PETITIONER

And

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its PrinciPal SecretarY, Municipal and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad^{and others}

¶37

,..RESPONDENTS

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

Heard Mr. Mohd-^Moin Qtradri,^{learned counsel for the} petitioner, Mr. K. Ravi Mahender,^{learnedstanding counsel for the} respondents No.2 to 4 -^{Cyberabac!i4unicipalCorporation (CMC),} and Mr. N. Sreedhar^{Reddy,iear-ned standing counsel for the} respondents l,,lo.5 and 6 -^{felangalraState SouthernPower} Distribution Company Limited^(TGSPDCL).

¶40

Learned standing^{counselforCMC furnishedwritten} instructions along with^{show cause rrotice dated 05'06'2026and} speaking order dated^{31.07.2026 passed against the petitioner'} The petitioner constructed^{unauthorizedshed withoutobtaining} permission from CMC. Show^{cause noticedated 05'06'2026was} issued to the^petitioner and^{as repiy i'vas not subrnitted,speaking}

¶41

¶42

order dated^{'31.O7.2026was issued. Consequently,letters were} forwarded to ,he^{TGSPCL and HMWWSSBto disconnect powerand} water supply^{provicieCto the subject premises'}

¶43

J Copy of'show^{causenotice and speakingorder are served on} the learned counsel^{for- the petitioner}

¶44

As it is stated^{by the learned counsel for the petitioner that} show cause notice^{and speaking orderare passed withoutservice of} notice and in^{violaticn cf prlnciplesof naturaljustice,statusquo'} obtaining as ln^{today, shall be maintainedfor a periodof fourteen} (14) days frc,m todav,^{wlthinwhich time, the petitionershall take} steps to chal enge^{the speaking order.}

¶45

The \vrit^petitio n^is dlsposed of. The^{miscellaneous}

¶46

applications,^{pending if any, shall stand closed' There shall be no} order as costs

¶47

SO/. P.PRAMOD^NAIK ASSISTANT^RE9iISTRAR l7-,,.

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The^{Principal Secretary, Municipal Administrationand UrbanDevelopment} o"patrn"il,^{Secretariai,'saifabad'Hyderabad' State of Telangana'}

¶52

fhe^{Munit;ipal Commissioner' CyberabadMunicipalCorporation'} SerilingamParllY,^HYderabad'

¶53

The^{Deputy Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation'Circle-52'} KukatpallY,^l-lYderabad

¶54

The Assistant^{City Planner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation'Circle-S2'} Kukatpally,^{l-'lYderabad.}

¶55

5.TheDivisioraIEngineer(operation),Kondapur,TelanganaStateSouthem power Distribution company Limited, sub-Division, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶56

6 The Assistant Engineer (Operation), Allapur, Telangana State Southern

¶57

Power Distribution Company Limited, Kondapur, Sub-Division, Medchal_

¶58

Malkajgiri District.

¶59

One CC to SRt MOHD MO|N AHMED eUADRt, Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

One CC to SRt K.RAV| MAHENDER, SC FOR CMC [OPUC]

¶61

One CC to SRt N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL tOpUCl

¶62

'l0.Two CCs to Gp FOR MC,L ADMN URBAN DEV, High Cou( for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTJ

¶63

.ffi)t.two^{CD Copies}

BSR

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: '1010912026

ORDER

WP.No.30304 of 2026

.ta
tB
,1 HE STA ,A:
(
t
d 11 stP 2026 >oz
.t'
*
i f) s AT o

¶71

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

L
C

P.Sunitha Reddy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sunitha Reddy v. 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