THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY ORDER : (ORAL)

Heard Mr. Md. Fasiuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that acting upon the complaints of the petitioner, show-cause notice vide Notice No.UCR.No.G1/MCJ/W30/735/2024 dated 12.07.2024 was issued to respondent No.3 to explain as to why the unauthorized construction made by her in the property bearing H.No.5-1-102, Rahamathpura, Jagtial, should not be removed. Subsequently, speaking order vide UCR.No.G1/MCJ/W30/735/2024 dated 08.08.2024 was also passed. Further, final notice dated 31.12.2024 was also issued to respondent the subject property.

3. It is submitted that respondent No.2 addressed letters dated 25.04.2025 and 28.05.2025 to the Superintending Engineer, TSNPDCL, Jagtial, stating that the officials of respondent No.2 have inspected the subject property and found that the building was constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Respondent No.3 was also directed to submit explanation. As respondent No.3 failed to submit any explanation, speaking order dated 08.08.2024 was passed and file was forwarded to the District Task Force Team for taking necessary action. The Superintending Engineer was also requested to disconnect the electricity connection to respondent No.3 in respect of the subject property.

4. Grievance of the petitioner is that having issued show-cause notice, speaking order and final notice to respondent No.3 for removing unauthorized construction in the subject property, no action has been initiated, as such, he is constrained to approach this Court.

5. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to forthwith implement the final notice vide Notice No.UCR.No.G1/MCJ/W30/735/2024 dated 31.12.2024, and property bearing H.No.5-1-102, Rahamathpura, Jagtial, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

As this order is passed without entering into the merits, notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with. However, if respondent No.3 is aggrieved by this order, she is at liberty to approach this Court seeking modification of this order. 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 October 24, 2025 Note: Issue CC today (BO) MS.