SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 73497

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
Muthineni Rambabu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 22944/2025



HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22944 OF 2025 ORDER : (ORAL)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the show cause notice No.F1/H&S/AMOH/GHMC/2024-25 dated 07.07.2025 issued by respondent No.3 and the action of respondent No.3 in not giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without giving sufficient time to the petitioner to obtain fire safety certificate and construct silt chamber in compliance of the Municipal laws, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. Heard Mr. K.R.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondent No.2; and perused the material on record.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property bearing H.No.15-21-128, Plot No.11, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District wherein he is running a women’s hostel under the name of ‘Kamakshiamma Women’s Hostel’ and registration certificate was issued by the Labour Department vide No.SEA/MED/ALO/KP/1136805/2025 dated

03.07.2025. The petitioner has also obtained statutory licences including licence obtained from Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). While so, show cause notice dated 07.07.2025 was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.3 alleging violations like lack of trade certificate, fire safety certificate, drainage issues and absence of silt chamber and he was directed to voluntarily stop the operations of running women’s hostel within a period of five (5) days.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 was informed that the petitioner possesses labour licence, trade licence and licence obtained from FSSAI. However, without detailed inspection being done and without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing, the impugned show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that if sufficient time is given, all the requisite licences will be obtained by the petitioner. Thus, the action of respondent No.2 in not granting sufficient time and not giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that complaints have been received from the resident neighbours regarding security, drainage issues, public nuisance, water problem, parking issues being caused due to the hostel being run unauthorizedly in the subject property. Further, it was also noticed by the respondent authorities that during the inspection of the subject property, the petitioner does not have trade licence, labour licence, and food safety certificate. As such, show cause notice dated 07.07.2025 was issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that no coercive action was taken by respondent No.2 and the petitioner was only advised to voluntarily stop the operation of the women’s hostel. Even after sufficient time was granted, the petitioner did not submit any reply to the impugned show cause notice so far. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the impugned show cause notice was issued only to ensure compliance of all the statutory requirements by the petitioner.

6. In view of the above, as no coercive action as such has been taken by respondent No.2 against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned show cause notice, this Court is not inclined to pass orders on merits.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit reply to the impugned show cause notice dated 07.07.2025 within a period of ten (10) days from today and on receipt of the same, respondent No.2 shall pass orders in accordance with law, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter. Pending consideration of such exercise, respondent No.2 is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top