IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY DATED:17.03.2026 Between:

Rapolu Mahesh Kumar …Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Department, Hyderabad and two others.

…Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following substantive relief:

“… to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in cancelling the house construction permission of the Petitioner by colluding with Respondent No.3 and issued notice vide letter No. 02/TPS/Circle- 4/GHMC/2019 Dated 08.11.2019 without considering the ownership and documentary evidence of the Petitioner as illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of India and consequently, to direct the Respondent No.2 to stop the proceedings in cancelling the house construction permission of the Petitioner.”

2. Heard Sri K.Revanth, learned counsel, representing Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel-on-record for the petitioner and Sri Srinivas Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. No representation on behalf of respondent No.3 despite service.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is owner of Plot No.81, admeasuring 174 square yards, in Sy.No.57 of Saroornagar Mandal, Chintalkunta area, Mallikarjuna Nagar Colony, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.14914/2017, dated 22.12.2017; that the petitioner applied for permission for construction of house and respondent No.2, after due verification, has sanctioned building permission vide Permit No.3/C4/136776/2018, dated 21.08.2018; that accordingly, the petitioner commenced construction; that the petitioner also obtained electricity connection vide SC.No.112154563 in the month of July, 2018; that while so, on a complaint given by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice dated 08.11.2019 directing the petitioner to submit explanation as to why permission should not be revoked; that the petitioner submitted his explanation to respondent No.2 on 27.11.2019, duly enclosing the ownership and permission documents, however, respondent No.2 has orally observed that permission would be cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. This Court vide interim order dated 31.12.2019 suspended the impugned notice dated 08.11.2019 principally on the ground that as per Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, (for short ‘the GHMC Act’), only the Commissioner is competent to cancel permission, whereas in the present case, respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner issued the impugned notice, who is not a competent authority.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that Commissioner would issue fresh notice to the petitioner under Section 450 of the GHMC Act and take further steps as per law and prayed to pass appropriate orders.

6. Admittedly, the impugned notice has been issued by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner who is not a competent authority. As per Section 450 of the Act, only Commissioner can cancel permission, therefore, the impugned notice dated 08.11.2019 is unsustainable on that ground alone and the same is liable to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, without delving into the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 08.11.2019 is set aside. However, the Commissioner, GHMC, is at liberty to issue fresh notice to the petitioner, on the complaint made by respondent No.3, and take further steps strictly in accordance with law.

8. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

___________________________________

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:17.03.2026 dr