IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.29647 of 2013 DATE: 06.03.2026 Between:

Sri Hanuman Sharma and another …Petitioners AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, situated at Tank Bund, Hyderabad & (3) others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue a direction or order more specifically a writ one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondents 1 and 2 in not taking action upon the complaint dated 08-10-2013 of the petitioner against the illegal and unauthorized construction made by the 3^rd and 4^th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and in violation to provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and also direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to take immediate action against the 3^rd and 4^th respondent on petitioner’s complaint dt. 08-10-2013 and demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction and pass…”

2. Heard Sri Hanuman Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the record.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, this Court by order dated on 24.10.2013 in W.P.M.P. No. 36813 of 2013, passed the following order:-

“Sri Nagesh Bheemapaka, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has produced the record and also the order dated 30.09.2013 addressing Respondents 3 and 4 directing them to show cause as to why the unauthorized constructions shall not be removed. This notice was, in fact, dispatched to Respondents 3 and 4 by Registered Post Acknowledgment due on 01.10.2013. Further, File No. 61890/20/70/2013 considering the plans submitted by Respondents 3 and 4 for construction of a residential building has also been placed before me which discloses that the permission sought for is rejected.

In this view of the matter, I hope and trust that the necessary follow up action to the notice, dated 30.09.2013, strictly in accordance with law, would be taken up within six weeks from today.

Notice.”

4. Learned counsel further contended that despite there being an interim direction way back in 2013, so further action has been taken by the respondents.

5. Learned Standing counsel submits that though the official respondents have issued notice on 30.09.2013, as on today, no further action has been initiated. He however, submits that subsequent action would be taken under the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955.

6. In that view of the matter, the respondent authorities are directed to take further action pursuant to the notice dated 30.09.2013, by issuing notice to the petitioner and also to all affected parties, and thereafter passing orders by considering the objection or explanation, if any, submitted thereto within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J Date: 06.03.2026 AKS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.29647 of 2013 Date: 06.03.2026 AKS