IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.13334 of 2013 DATE: 13.03.2026 Between:

Mohd. Ahmed Aslem Abdullah Quraishi …Petitioner AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner, Having office at Municipal Complex, Tank Bund, Hyderabad And three others …Respondents

ORDER:

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

“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders of the 1^st respondent dated 18.04.2013 in File No.4/VET/SZ/ GHMC/2013, whereby the Application of the petitioner seeking License for running the Diary Farm in the premises bearing Municipal No.8-13-99/5, Mailardevpally Village, Circle – VI, Rajendernagar, G.H.M.C., Hyderabad, has been rejected and to issue a consequential direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the application of the petitioner afresh keeping in light the provision of the G.H.M.C. Act, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders ….”

2. Heard Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Perused the record.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order, dated 18.11.2013 was passed by the Commissioner, GHMC, under the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, the ‘Act’), whereunder, it was mentioned that under Section 407 of the Act, animals shall not be tethered on streets or other public places. Further, under Sections 510 and 511 of the Act, no person shall keep any animals of his premises, so as to be cause nuisance or danger to any person and stable animals. Section 540 of the Act prohibits the import of cattle into city without prior written permission of the Commissioner, and Section 623 of the Act mandates that running a dairy farm requires a valid license to keep dairy animals from the Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad.

4. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner does not possess any valid subsisting license for running a diary farm and was maintaining about 51 buffaloes in violation of the provisions of the Act, and as the petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirements, he was issued directions to shift the livestock outside the city limits within one week from the date of receipt of the said notice, failing which, appropriate action would be taken. It is further submitted that in view of rapid urbanization, rapid growth in population, and heavy traffic conditions, the free movement and unauthorized maintenance of cattle within city limits are causing serious inconvenience to the public, including traffic obstruction and health hazards. The maintenance of cattle in residential areas is detrimental both to public safety and to the welfare of the animals themselves.

5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the maintenance of a dairy farm with a considerable number of cattle within city limits, particularly in a residential locality, cannot be countenanced. Such activity, by its very nature, results in significant inconvenience to the local residents as well as the general public. Further, the movement and tethering of cattle in and around public streets obstruct the free flow of traffic and pedestrian movement, creating avoidable congestion and safety hazards. Hence, this Court finds that such use of residential premises for maintaining cattle is detrimental to public health, safety, and orderly urban living, and cannot be permitted to continue in violation of the applicable statutory provisions and the impugned notice cannot be interfered with.

6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Writ Petition is dismis