IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.93 of 2026 Dated: 27.01.2026 Between:

Ramesh … Appellants And Mr. Tapas Chakraborty and 4 others …Respondents JUDGMENT:

Mr. V.R. Mannepalli, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Dishit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel represents Mr. K.S. Vishwajit, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

Mr. E. Venkat Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department appears for respondent No.2.

Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appears for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. On the basis of a complaint by respondent No.1 and pursuant to the interim directions of the learned writ Court, proceedings were initiated by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short, “the Corporation”) on the allegation of violation by the appellant in running a Tiffin centre which qualified as unauthorized commercial activity in the residential area without any permission from the Corporation. The proceedings ended after notice and hearing to the parties directing the appellant to remove the unauthorized commercial activity being run in the subject premises in exercise of the powers under Section 461A of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. On the request of the appellant, the learned writ Court granted two months time to comply with the order and remove the structures unauthorizedly made in the subject premises and also stop the commercial activity being run in the said premises. The appellant has assailed the said direction.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has alleged discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis respondent No.1, whereas, such activities are rampantly being conducted in residential areas all over the city, including Kukatpally. 4. However, on perusal of the impugned order and the pleadings on record, we find that after participating in the proceedings where in the alleged violations have been found to be true, the appellant agreed to remove the two structures within two months time. Thereupon the writ petition was disposed of. Now, it is not permissible for the appellant to reprobate and allege illegality in the proceedings before the Corporation or any error in the impugned order of the learned writ Court. We, therefore, refrain from interfering in the matter.

5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ _____________________________

G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J Date: 27.01.2026 ES