HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. According to the petitioner herein, he is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing M.No.11-1-923 & 924 (PTIN No.1121100365), admeasuring 37 square yards, situated at Seetharambagh, Mallepllay, Hyderabad, on the strength of a registered Gift Deed bearing document No.2676 of 2021, dated 29.04.2021. Since the extent of house is 37 square yards, there was no necessity to obtain permission from the respondent Corporation. He has been paying property tax to the respondent Corporation. Thus, he is in possession of the subject property.

3. While so, on receipt of complaints dated 06.08.2024, 30.08.2024, 10.09.2024 and 23.09.2024 from M/s. Ratnam Enclave Residents Welfare Association (for short ‘Association’), respondent No.4 has issued show-cause notice dated 18.10.2024 to the petitioner herein alleging that he has made construction by encroaching into road margin. Seven (07) days time was granted to the petitioner to submit explanation. He has submitted explanation on 25.10.2024. On consideration of the same, respondent No.4 has passed speaking order dated 21.01.2025 directing the petitioner to remove the deviated portion/unauthorized construction within fifteen (15) days. Challenging the said speaking order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on receipt of the said complaints, without inspecting the site and without ascertaining the allegations made by the aforesaid Association, respondent No.4 has issued show-cause notice dated 18.10.2024. The said fact was specifically mentioned in their explanation dated 25.10.2024. Even then, respondent No.4 did not consider the same. He is the Member of the Professor Kottapalli Jayashankar Welfare Association (for short ‘PKJW Association’). The said PKJW Association submitted numerous complaints to the respondent authorities with a request to take action against the godowns located in his residential zone posing significant fire hazard etc. The same was not considered. Therefore, the said PKJW Association has filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.1380 of 2025. The same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2025 directing respondent No.4 therein to restore the girder and consider the explanation dated 25.10.2024 submitted by the Members of the PKJW Association to the show-cause notice dated 18.10.2024. Thus, according to the petitioner, the Association submitted complaints against the petitioner as a counter-blast as he is the Member of the PKJW Association.

5. Perusal of show-cause notice would reveal that respondent No.4 has issued the said show-cause notice dated 18.10.2024 on the aforesaid complaints lodged by the said Association. On receipt of the said complaints, respondent No.4 has not inspected the site to ascertain the correctness of the allegations made by the said Association. However, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation dated 25.10.2024. The same was not considered.

6. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he never encroached on to the road margin as alleged by respondent No.4 in the show-cause notice dated 18.10.2024. But, according to respondent o.4 and the aforesaid Association, the petitioner made construction by encroaching on to the road margin. It is a factual aspect which this Court cannot consider in a writ petition filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned speaking order is an appealable order in terms of Section - 655 of the GHMC Act, 1955. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned speaking order passed by respondent No.4 is in violation of principles of natural justice and the procedure laid down under GHMC Act, 1955 to maintain the present writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal. Therefore, the pet