THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1331 OF 2025 Mr. Pranay Sohini, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for the respondent Nos.6 to 8.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 08.10.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.29993 of

2025.

2. The appellants herein are the respondent Nos.8 and 9 in the Writ Petition.

3. By the impugned order dated 08.10.2025, the learned Single Judge directed the respondent Nos.6 and 7/the Zonal Commissioner, North Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Secunderabad and the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Circle No.30, Begumpet, Hyderabad (respondent Nos.7 and 8 in the Appeal) to immediately stop the construction activity undertaken by the respondent Nos.8 and 9 (the appellants herein) on the subject property and if necessary to seal their property with the assistance of the concerned police. The writ petition was directed to be listed along with W.P.No.13018 of

2025 and batch on 29.10.2025.

4. This Court is informed that the said batch of Writ Petitions was not listed on 29.10.2025 or at any time thereafter before the learned Single Judge.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the impugned order is an ad-interim ex parte order and permits drastic consequences to be visited upon the appellants without affording them an opportunity of being heard. Counsel further submits that pursuant to the impugned order, the respondent No.8/the Deputy Commissioner of GHMC issued a Sealing Notice dated 23.10.2025, in consequence of which the appellants’ property was sealed. It is also submitted that the appellants have not yet received the notice of the Writ Petition.

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for the respondent Nos.6 to 8. Although the Cause List reflects the name of counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner failed to appear before the Court today.

7. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed ex parte. The construction activity undertaken by the appellants was stopped by the officials of the GHMC with the assistance of the Police and the appellants’ property had been sealed. The final relief sought in the Writ Petition is, inter alia, sealing of the premises of the appellants/respondent Nos.8 and 9. Hence, by the impugned order, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was granted relief in the nature of the final relief prayed for in the Writ Petition. Any order with drastic consequences should ordinarily be passed only after hearing the party who would be affected by such consequences. In the present case, the appellants were not heard on the date of the impugned order. Notably, the ‘sealing’ action was taken even before the appellants were served notice of the Writ Petition.

8. Hence, we deem it fit to permit the appellants to present their case before the learned Single Judge upon mentioning the matter for urgent listing, if so advised. The respondent Nos.6 to 8 shall be restrained from taking any steps under the Sealing Notice dated 23.10.2025 till 11.12.2025 subject to further orders passed in the pending Writ Petition.

9. W.A.No.1331 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J _____________________________

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 26.11.2025 va