The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, requiring authorities to consider a party's explanation before taking coercive action.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in trying to demolish petitioners Shed Commercial bearing Municipal No.1-13-124/A/2, admeasuring 167.22 Square Meters equal to 200 Square Yards Situated at Kapuwada Street Ward No.06, Kaghaz Nagar Town, Komarambheem Asifabad District, without considering petitioners explanation dated 05.05.2025 without giving opportunity of being heard and without following due process of law as being illegal, arbitrary and against to principles of natural justice and Art 300A of Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondent No.2 not to demolish the petitioners Shed Commercial bearing Municipal No.1-13-124/A/2 admeasuring 167.22 Square Meters equal to 200 Square Yards Situated at Kapuwada Street, Ward No.06, Kaghaz Nagar Town Komarambheem Asifabad District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri Rudresh Pande, learned counsel representing Sri Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is owner and possessor of the subject property i.e., shed (commercial) bearing Municipal No.1-13-124/A/2 admeasuring 167.22 square meters equal to 200 square yards, situated at Kapuwada Street, Ward No.06, Kaghaz Nagar Town, Komarambheem Asifabad District and the petitioner claiming his rights over the subject property stating that he purchased the same through registered sale deed document bearing No.308 of 2024 dated 29.02.2024. Respondent No.2 granted permission for construction of residential building on 19.10.2023 in TSbPASS. Accordingly the petitioner started construction of a shed (commercial) as the front portion for his livelihood.

5. While things stood thus, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 16.04.2025 and directed the petitioner to produce relevant records accordingly, the petitioner submitted copies of relevant records. Thereafter, again respondent No.2 has issued another show cause notice dated 30.04.2025 directing the petitioner to produce the house ownership documents. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation and on 05.05.2025 by enclosing a copy of registered sale deed document No.308 of 2024 dated 29.02.2024 along with other documents including TSbPASS permission granted by respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 without properly considering the explanation of the petitioner issued impugned notice dated 08.05.2025 and also trying to dispossess the petitioner by demolishing the subject property which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

6. Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that since the petitioner occupied the road and making construction of the subject property, respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice dated 08.05.2025 after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 05.05.2025 pursuant to the earlier show cause notice dated 30.04.2025 and the same is in accordance with law.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusing the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of seven (07) days as to why the subject shed should not be removed. The record further reveals that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation to the impugned show cause notice of respondent No.2 and straight away approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

8.