HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15969 OF 2025 ORDER : (ORAL)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

“...to issue Writ, Order or Direction, or any other appropriate Order one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.5 issuing Show Cause Notice vide No.1004/COMM/ HYDRA/2025 dated 27.05.2025 to the Petitioner without having any authority determining the roads over the non-existing layouts claiming that the Petitioner has made construction in Sy.No.32 of Cyber Hills, Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by way of encroaching the road knowing well that the house was constructed in Sy.No.30 and 31 part after obtaining the sanctioned plan vide File No.2/C20/06797/2021, permit No.2/C20/09559/2021, dated 09.09.2021 and completed the construction in the year 2022 and obtained Occupancy Right Certificate vide Proceedings No.3377/ GHMC/SLP/2022-OC dated 02.11.2024, threatening to demolish the building which was constructed as per the sanctioned plan as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice besides violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently set aside Show Cause Notice vide No 1004/COMM/HYDRA/ 2025 dated

27.05.2025 issued by the Respondent No.5 and to pass...”

2. Mr. E. Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that show cause notice dated 27.05.2025 was issued to the petitioner alleging that he has encroached 30 feet wide road situated in Survey No.32 of Cyber Hills, Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation within a period of seven (7) days. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation dated 31.05.2025. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned show cause notice is in the nature of final decision and from the tenor of the said notice, it is clear that HYDRAA has already made up its mind and has come to a conclusion that the petitioner has encroached 30 feet road. Thus, no purpose would be served and it would be a mere formality if the HYDRAA passes any order pursuant to the impugned notice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427, wherein it was held that show cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceedings become and idle ceremony (Para No.27) and the person who receives the show cause notice must get in impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show cause and prove his innocence (Para No.31).

4. Mr. S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unfounded. In fact, HYDRAA has not come to any conclusion. On verification of the documents, encroachment of 30 feet

road by the petitioner was found and observations were drawn in the impugned show cause notice and the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation to which he submitted detailed explanation on 31.05.2025.

5. Upon hearing the learned Special Government Pleader and on reading the contents in the impugned show cause notice, this Court is of the opinion that show cause notice only refers to observations based on which respondent No.5 has formed an opinion that there is encroachment of 30 feet wide road in Survey No.32 of Guttala Begumpet Village. The petitioner, in fact, has filed detailed explanation to the impugned show cause notice. It would suffice if respondent No.5 is directed to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before any final decision is taken pursuant to the impugned show cause notice.

6. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.5 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject premises in Sy.N