##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

WRIT PETITION No.16261 of 2026

DATED: 15.05.2026

Between

Gaddam Ramesh

…Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department,

Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and (04) others.

…Respondents

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“to issue any order direction or Writ more particularly in

the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of

respondent No.4 in issuing the speaking order dated

16.04.2026 vide Roc. No.G1/4756/2025 without issuing

show cause notice and without affording me an opportunity of

hearing as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, contrary to law

and violation of Article 300A of Constitution of India and also

violation of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and

consequently to set aside the Speaking Order dated

16.04.2026 vide Roc. No.G1/4756/2025 and to pass..”

2. Heard Sri S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban

Development Department appearing for respondent No.1, learned

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3,

2

and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC

appearing for respondent No.4.

3. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for

disposal at the stage of admission.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4

issued the Speaking Order dated 16.04.2026 without issuing any show

cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is

further submitted that the vendor had applied for building permission

vide Application No.030770/MANC/00248/IABP/2025 dated

04.12.2025, which is pending consideration. However, the status of the

said application has not been considered or reflected in the impugned

Speaking Order.

5. On a perusal of the impugned Speaking Order, it is evident that

notices were issued to the petitioner’s vendor and proceedings were also

initiated against the vendor, and thereafter the impugned order has been

passed against the petitioner, who is the subsequent purchaser of the

property. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Speaking Order

dated 16.04.2026 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is

not sustainable in law, and is liable to be set aside. Further, the

impugned order appears to have been passed without proper

consideration of the pending application for building permission. In view

of the same, the Speaking Order vide Roc.No.G1/4756/2025 dated

16.04.2026 is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to

3

issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and after affording him an

opportunity of personal hearing, take action in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. No order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________

JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

Date: 15.05.2026

NSP/DSU