IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITON No.36504 OF 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 01-12-2025 Between:

Mr. Munikuntla Kiran Kumar Goud S/o. Narsimha Goud ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Rep. By its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat Hyderabad, and two others.

... Respondents ORDER : (ORAL)

Heard Mr. Thanneru Venkata Ratnam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Municipalities, appearing for respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner claims to be owner and possessor of the property admeasuring 1188 square yards and 306 square yards in Survey Nos.43 and 39 situated at Narapally Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The petitioner erected tin shed in the property and got it assessed with respondent No.3 vide PTI Nos.1228210482 and 1228210483 for H.Nos.3-43/N and 3-

43/N/1.

3. It is stated that the property was given on lease to one Mr. Korra Sitaram and another who are running tea shop under the name and style of ‘TEA DUST & COFFEE’. The tenants have obtained trade license vide S.No.900031040 dated 20.08.2025 and Food Safety and Standards Authority of India license vide No.13625034000243 for running business.

4. It is stated that while things stood thus, show-cause notice vide No.G1/UC-75/MCP/2025 dated 15.11.2025 was issued to the petitioner directing him to stop unauthorized construction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detailed explanation dated 24.11.2025 was submitted by the petitioner to the notice dated 15.11.2025. However, without considering the same, impugned final notice vide No.G1/UC-75/MCP/2025 dated 25.11.2025 was issued to the petitioner directing him to remove the alleged unauthorized construction.

5. It is submitted that the structures raised in the subject property are temporary in nature and there is no nuisance or inconvenience caused to the neighbours and public in general.

Thus, the impugned final notice is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that admittedly, the petitioner does not have any building permission. Even assuming that the structures made by the petitioner are temporary, permission is required under the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019 and TG-bPASS Act 2020. The petitioner is always at liberty to apply for building permission or for regularization of structures already raised by him in the subject property.

7. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tenants are running business in the subject property and they would put to irreparable loss and injury if respondent authorities demolish the structures standing on the property. The petitioner would take steps to submit application either for building permission or for regularization of structures existing on the subject property.

8. In view of the above submissions, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to apply for building permission construction of temporary or permanent structures on the subject property. As and when such application is submitted, respondent No.3 shall pass orders within a period of twenty one (21) days thereof. In case structures made by the petitioner are in conformity with the building Bye Laws, then respondent No.3 shall not take any action against the petitioner; to enable the petitioner to rectify the structures constructed and file application for building permission, final notice vide No.G1/UC-75/MCP/2025 dated 25.11.2025 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six (6) weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J December 01, 2025

MS