IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.17392 of 2014 DATE: 08.04.2026 Between:

P. Shankar Singh …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 4 others …Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

“…to issue writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents in not taking any action on the petitioner representation dt. 28.02.2014 and not cancelling the building permissions granted in favour of 4^th and 5^th respondents vide Permit Nos. 20650/DC/SZ/CIR-6/2013 dt. 26.02.2013 and permit No.16875 DC/SZ/CIR-6/2012 dt. 25.09.2012 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and consequently the direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to cancel the building permissions granted in favour of 4th and 5th respondents vide permit Nos. 20650/DC/SZ/CIR-6/2013 dt. 26.02.2013 and the permit No.16875 DC/SZ/CIR-6/2012 dt. 25.09.2012 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. Admittedly, the relief sought by the petitioner for cancellation of the building permission granted in favour of the respondent No.4, is a relief which can be adjudicated upon proper appreciation of facts and evidence, which is not permissible under Article 226 of Constitution of India in the present Writ Petition. In Seri Narayana Reddy and others Vs. Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others, 2026 (2) ALD 385 (TS), the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that challenge to the cancellation of the lay out or the building permission cannot be maintained by filing the writ petition, as it requires evidence to be adduced by either of the parties. Thus, the petitioner ought to have approached the competent Civil Court for redressal of the grievance.

4. In that view of the matter, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent forum for redressal of the grievance including the claim in the writ petition. No costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this petition, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J Date: 08.04.2026 bj THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.17392 of 2014 Date: 08.04.2026 bj