Between

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

[ 3255 I

Madhav, Age. 33 years, Occ.

B Nagar, Ananda Siri NilaYam,

...PETITIONER

Dachepally Chandra Babu, S/o Dachepally

Advocate, Flat No. - 301, Chitra layout, L

Hyderabad, Telangana State, 500074.

AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal secretqry,_Pep!.olttlqnicipal

. .

Administration-and Urbin tievelopmeht (MA and UD), BRKR Bhawan, NH 44,

Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500063.

2. State of'Telangana,Rep. by Special Chief

-Secrqt?ry,.[t44-an9

UD Dept. and

special officer-HMDA Limitd, BRKR Bhawan, NH 44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar,

Hvderabad. Telanqana 500063

3. Gieater Hyilerabad Municipal Corporation (G!MQ),. Fqp

b.V Commissioner

CC Complex, Tank Bund Road, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad, Telangana

500063.

4. Shree Durga Pochamma Devasthana[,_ R9P. by Authorized Person St. # 10,

whitehouse, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, 500017.

...RES'ONDENTS

. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Direction or Order more particularly one in

the nature of Writ of Mandamus and

1. To declare that the State Respondents R1 to R3 are duty bound to

demolish, recovery cost and prosecute violators for illegal constructions in

State under section 461tSgOl64O GHMC'Act 1955, Municipalities Act 2019,

read with Section 9/10 of the TG BPASS Act2O2O and,rules therewith for

any illegal construction and hold the illegal arch construction by the R4 (Pvt.

Temple) by encroaching public road in Hyderabad as illegal and

consequentially direct the R3 (GHMC) to submit to this Honourabte Court

the complete action taken report (demolition, cost and prosecution) against

the violator (for constructing illegal Concrete Temirle Arch) on the road and

L

direc;t R1, R2 (MAUD and Special CS) to R3 (GHMC) to take necessary

action (demolition, recovery of cost and prosecution by GHMC) in

accordance with law on the complaint with Grievance lD. 1503265764989

Dt. 15/03/2026 (earlier complaint through counsel on 26th Feb 2026 on

GHMC App with Grievance lD. 703265750141 Dt. 7th March 2026 & pass

any r;uch other order or orders this Honourable Court may deem fit in the

circurnsta nces consequently

2. To impose cost of 25,000 (twenty thousand rupees) on R3

(GHfvlCtommissioner) under Rule 20 of TG Pass Rules 2020 or such

fine/cost, for failing to impldment the mandate of TG-BPASS Act To hold

that rton recovery of the cost by R1 to R3, on expenses incurred for

demolition of illegal constructions is loss to State exchequer, as such, is

statutrry duty and NOT discretion to initiate recovery proceedings in

accorrlance with law

3. To hold that the State Respondents are duty bound to act on complaints

filed c,r illegal buitding construction violations brought to the notice of the

State authorities even through social media platforms, as per the statutory

mandarte under section 3, 5 of the TG-BPASS Act 2020 read with Rule 5(ii)

(c) of 1-G B-Pass Rules 2O2O.

lA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct

the R3 (GHMC) to take necessary action to haIUSTOP illegal construction of the

Temple Arch on the Road by the Respondent no.4 (Temple) on the complaint with

Grievance llf . 1503265764989, dt. 1sth March 2026, {old complaint.

T03265T50141 dt. 7th March 2026, X platform complaint 26th Feb 2026) filed by

the petitioner herein including showing estimated total cost to be incurred on

demolition (for removal of encroachment), to this Honourable Court within a time

bound manne'as this Honourable Court may deem fit.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY GOPAL

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI KISHORE KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: --

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE IIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT ITYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

WRIT No.1O456 of2o.26

DATE OF ORDER: O7.04.2o.26

Between:

Dachepally tlhandrababu

..Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department,

(MA&UD), BRKR Bhawan, NH44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad,

Telangana-SlOO63 & 3 others

...Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is liled questioning the action of respondent

Nos.l to 3 fcrr not taking action on the illegal construction i.e., Arch

Construction by respondent No.4/Shree Durga Pochamma

Devasthananr situated on the road portion at street No.10, Tarnaka

(after lalagucta flyover towards OU) (hereinafter referred as 'subject

property) encroaching on the public road in Hyderabad as being illegal

and seeking a consequential direction to respondent No.3 to submit

complete action report.

2. Brief faots of the case as stated are that the petitioner observed

illegal Tempk: Arch construction made by the respondent No.4 on

27.02.2026 at. Tarnaka and filed a twitter (now x) through his counsel

on the same ctay but, the respondent No.3 did not take any action. A

2

complaint was liled on 15.03.2026 on GHMC Mobile App however; the

respondent authorities failed to act on the said complaint within one

week as per the law enacted under TG-bPASS Act, 2020. Aggrieved by

the said inaction, the present writ petition has been filed-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had

made a complaint on 15.03.2026 vide Grievance Reddressal Cell

through GHMC Mobile App stating that respondent No.4 temple in

Tarnaka is building an illegal arch. Learned counsel has further

drawn attention of this Court to photographs annexed to this writ

petition, wherein it is noted that digging activity is being undertaken

on the road. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the

event of the respondent authorities demolishing the unauthorized

structures over the subject property, there is chance of respondent

No.4 again starting unauthorized structures, as respondent No.4 is

not effected in any way as the demolition expenses are being incurred

by the respondent authorities from the public money as such a

direction may be given to the respondent authorities concerned to

collect the expenses incurred for demolition of unauthorized

structures over the subject property from the respondent No.4. It is

further submitted that since the said activity is being continued

inspite of the grievance brought to the notice of the respondent

authorities by way of complaint dated 15.03.2026; the respondent

authorities may be directed to consider the complaint dated

15.03.2026 and take action in a time bound period.

3

4. On ttre other hand, Mr. Kishore Kumar, learned Standing

Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.3 on instructions

would submit that a show cause notice dated L3.O3.2O26 was issued

to respondent No.4. Learned standing counsel further submits that

pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner daled 15.03.2026, a

speaking orrier dated 28.03.2026 has been issued directing the

respondent No.4 to remove the deviations/un-authorized

construction:; made on the subject property within (15) days failing

which further action will be taken to remove, alter or pull down the

deviated por:ion/un-authorized construction and expenses thereof

'*,ill be recovr--red from respondent No.4. Learned standing counsel

further submits that since the alleged construction activity is being

carried out i;r the Tarnaka Zone, prays this Court to add Deputy

Commissioner-, Circle No.43, Tarnaka, Secunderabad Zone, GHMC as

respondent t: this writ petition, for effective implementation of

directions of t.:is Court.

5. Heard k:arned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing

Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and perused the material

made availabk: on the record.

6. Since this Court, time and again, directed the Municipal

Authorities to initiate action against the illegal constructions by

following due process of law, it is noticed that the authorities are

failing to initiate action against the illegal constructions. However, in

some of the ()ases, authorities are issuing statutory notices and

I

4

thereafter not proceeding further to initiate further course of action

unless writ petitions are liled for not considering complaints/

representations made to civic authorities.

7. It is not out of place to mention Section z(61 of the Telangana

State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TG-

bPASS) Act,2o2o (for short the TG-bPASS ActJ encourages citizens to

put on notice to the Civic Authorities regarding unauthorized

constructions. Section 7(61 of the TG-bPASS Act is extracted for

reference.

"7. Approval of Building Permissions-

(6) Citizens shall be encouraged to bring to

the notice of Municipality and District Collector

cases where unauthorized construction or

. construction in violation of or in excess of

permissions, in the manner prescribed.

The identity of such informers shall be kept

confidential. All such cases shall be examined

within a week from such information and

appropriate action initiated. The information shall

be incentivized in all such cases where the

information, furnished by him is found to be

correct."

8. For better appreciation, this Court deems it appropriate to refer

some of the relevant Sections of Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the GHMC Act).

Section 428 of the GHMC Act. 1955

5

42A. Notice to be siven to commissioner of

intention tg erect a buildins: (1) Every

person who intends to erect a building shall

give to the commissioner notice of his said

intention in a form, obtained for this purpose

under Section 435, specifyrng the position of

the building intended to be erected,- the

description of building, the purpose for which

it is intended, its dimensions and the name of

the person whom he intends to employ to

supervise its erection.

Section 433 of GHMC Act, 1955

433. Notice tobe Eiven to the

Commissioner of intention to make

rrdditions. etc.. :- "Every person who shall

:.ntend.

(a) to make any addition to a building; or

(b) to make any alteration or repairs to a

building; not being a frame-building, involving

l.he removal or re-erection of any external or

party-wall thereof or of €rny wall which

r;upports the roof thereof, to an extent

t:xceeding one-half of such wall above the

lllinth level, such half to be measured in

..;uperficial feet; or

(c) to make any alteration or repairs to a

frame-building, involving the removal or

re-erection of more than one-half of the posts

in any such wall thereof as aforesaid or

iavolving the removal or re-erection of any such

vrall thereof as aforesaid to an extent exceeding

6

one-half of such wall above the plinth level,

such half to be measured in superficial feet; or

(d) to make any alteration in a building

involving:-

(i) the sub-division of any room in such

building so as to convert the same into two or

more separate rooms.

(ii) the conversion of any passage or space in

such building into a room or rooms; or

(e) to remove or reconstruct any portion of a

building abutting on a street which stands

within the regular line of such street; shall give

to the Commissioner in a form obtained for the

purpose under section 435 notice of his

intention, speciffing the portion of the building

in which such work is to be executed, the

nature and extent of the intended work, the

particular part or parts, if any, of such work

which is or are intended to be used for human

habitation and the name of the person whom

he intends to employ to supenrise its

execution."

Section 451 of GHMC Act. 1955

"451. Inspection of buildings in course of

erection, alteration etc.:- The Commissioner

may at any time during the erection or

re-erection of a building or the execution of any

such work as is described in Section 433 make

an inspection thereof without giving previous

notice of his intention so to do."

7

Section 452 of GHMC Act. 19SS

452. Demolition or alteration of the building

work unlawfully commenced, carried on or

completed and appeal thereon:- (1) If the

Commissioner is satisfled that the construction

or re-construction of any building or execution

of any work as described in Section 433 is

commenced or carried out contrary to the

provisions of the Act or building rules or bye-

laws made thereunder, he shall make a

provisional order requiring tl.e person who is

constructing or re-constructing such building

or executing such work or has constructed or

re-constructed such building or executed such

work to demolish such unauthorized

'--onstruction

or re-construction or work within

ir period specified to bring such construction or

re-construction of the building or work in

r:onformity with the provisions of the Act or

building rules or Bye-laws made thereunder

zurd may also direct that until the said order is

<:omplied with, the concerned person shall

refrain from proceeding with such construction

c,r reconstruction of the building or work.

Section 456 of GHMC Act, 1955

"Danqerous Strrrctures

Removal of structures, trees etc., which are in

rui.ns or likely to fall:- (l) If it shall at any time

apl)ea-r to the Commissioner that any structure

(in,:luding under this expression any building,

wall, parapet, pavement, floor, steps, railings,

door or window frames or shutters or roof, or

8

other structure and anything aflixed to or

projection from or resting on, any building, wall,

parapet or other structure) is in ruinous condition

or likely to fall, or is in any way dangerous to any

person occupying, resorting to or passing by, such

structure or any other structure or place in the

neighborhood thereof, the Commission-er may, by

written notice, require the owner or occupier of

such structure to do one or more of the following

things, namely:-

(i) to pull down,

(ii) to secure,

(iii) to remove, or

(i") to repair such structure or thing, and to

prevent all cause of danger therefrom.

(2) The Commissioner may also, if he thinks fit,

require the said owner or occupier by the said

notice, either forthwith or before proceedings to

pull down, secure, remove or repair the structure

or things, to set up a proper and suflicient hoard

or fence for the protection of passers-by and other

persons, with a convenient platform and

hand-rail, if there be room enough for the same

the Commissioner shall think the same desirable,

to serwe as footway for passengers outside of such

hoard or fence.

(3) tf it appears to the Commissioner tl:at the

danger from a structure which is ruinous or about

to fall is imminent, he may, before giving notice as

aforesaid or before the period of notice expires,

fence off, take down, secure or repair the said

9

structure or take such steps or cause work to be

executed as may be required to arrest the danger.

([) Any expenses incurred by the Commissioner

under sub-section (3) shall be paid by the owner

or occupier of the structure.

(S;) (a) Where the Commissioner is of opinion

whether on receipt of an application or otherwise

that the only or the most convenient means by

which the owner or occupier of structure such as

is referred to in sub-section (1) can pull down,

socure, remove or repair such structure, is by

entering any of the adjoining premises belonging

to some other person the Commissioner after

giuing such person a reasonable opportunity of

stating any objection may, if no such objection is

raised or if any objection which is raised appears

to him invalid or insuflicient, by an order in

writing, authorize the said owner or occupier to

enter such adjoining premises.

(b) Every such order bearing the signature of the

Cc,mmissioner shall be a suflicient authority to the

person in whose favour it is made, or to any agent

or person employed by him for this purpose,

after giving to the owner of the premises

rezrsonable written notice of his intention so to do,

to enter upon the said premises with assistants

anC workmen, at any time between sunrise and

su:1 set, and to execute the necessary work.

(c) In executing, any work under this section as

littte damage as possible shall be done to the

adjoining owner's property, and the owner or

occupier of premises for the benefit of which the

wor-k is done, shall

-

10

(i) cause the work to be executed with the least

practicable delay;

(ii) pay compensation to any person who sustains

damage by the execution of the said work.

Section 461-A of GHMCAct. 1955

"461-A. Powers to seal unarithorized

construction/development of premises:-

(1) It shall be lawful for the Commissioner,

at any time, before or after making an order for

the removal or discontinuance of any

unauthorized development or construction

under section 461,, to make an order directing

the sealing of such development or property or

taking the assistance of potce, for the purpose

of carrying out the provisions of the Act."

Section 636 of GHMC Act. 1955

"636. Work or thing done without written

permission of the Commissioner to be

deemed unauthorizedz- (1) If any work or

thing requiring the written permission of the

Commissioner under any provision of this Act,

or any rule, regulation or bye-law is done by

any person without obtaining such written

permission or, if such written permission is

subsequently suspended or revoked for any

reason by the Commissioner, such work or

thing shalt be deemed to be unauthorised and

subject to any other provision of this Act the

Commissioner may at any time, by written

notice, require that the same shall be removed,

pulled down or undone as the case may be, by

the person so carrying out or doing if the

person carrying out such work or doing such

L1,

thing is not the owner at the time of such

notice then the owner at the time of giving

such notice shall be liable for carrying out the

requisitions of the Commissioner.

(2) If within the period specif-red in such written

notice the requisitions contained therein are

not carried out by the person or owner; as the

case may be, the Commissioner may remove or

alter such work or undo such thing and the

expenses thereof shall be paid by such person

or owner as the case may be."

9- on perllsal of the above provisions, it is crear that the

respondent authorities are vested with statutory powers to inspect any

property and after putting on notice and after giving fair opportunity

of hearing tr: the concerned parties, may take appropriate action

against the unauthorized constructions on such properties, in

accordance with law.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme court in shanti sports club and ors.

vs. union ol'India (uoll and ors1, held that violators of the Town

Planning Scheme cannot be granted any relief. The relevant

observations irre as under:

"52. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to

enter a caueat. In all deueloped countries, great

emphasis has been laid on the planned

deuelopm.ent of cities and urban areas. The object

of planned deuelopment has been achieued. bg

rigorous enforcement of master plans prepared.

' ((2009) ls scc 7o5)

L2

after careful studg of umplex rssueg scientific

research and rationalisation of laws. The peopte of

thase countries haue greatlg contrtbuted. to the

concept of planned deuelopment of cities bg stricttg

adhering to the planning lauts, the master plan etc.

Theg respect the laws enacted by the legislature

f.or regulating planned deuelopment of the cities

and seldom there is a complaint of uiolation of

master plan etc. in the construction of buildings,

residential, institutional o r commercial.

ln contrast, scenario in the deueloping countries

like ours rrs substantiallg different. Though, the

competent legislatures haue, from time to time,

enacted laws for ensuring planned deuelopment of

the cities and urban area-s, enforcement thereof

has been extremelg poor and the people haue

uiolated the master plans, zoning plans and

building regulalions and bge-laws with impunitg.

In last four decades, almost all cities, big or small,

haue seen unplanned growtlt In the 21st century,

the menace of illegal and unauthoriz,ed

constructions and encroachments has acquired

monstrous proportions and eueryone ha.s been

paging heaug pice for the same. Economicallg

afJluent people and those lnuing support of the

political and. executiue apparatus of the State haue

constntcted buildings, commercial complexes,

multiplexes, malls etc. in blatant uiolation of the

municipal and toutn planning laws, master plans,

zonal deuelopment plans and euen the sanctioned

building plans. In most of the cases oLlllegal or

unauthorized onstructions, the officers of the

municipal and other reoulatoru bodies turn blind

eue either due to the influerrce of higher

functionaies of the State or other extraneous

reasons. Thase utho construct buitdings in uitolation

of the releuant statutory prouisions, master plan

etc. and those who directlg or indirectlg abet such

:

T

.,#n*.i....s.*M

13

violations are totally unmindful of the graue

consequences of their actions and/ or omissions on

the present as well a.s future

generations of the

country which will be forced

to liue in unplanned

cities and urban areas. The people belonging to

this class do not realize that the constructions

made in uiolation of the releuant laws, master plan

or zonal deuelopment plan or sanctioned building

plan or the building rs used for a purpose other

than tlrc one specified. in the releuant statute or the

master plan etc., such constntctions out

unbearableburden on public

facilities/amenities like water. electrl.citu,

seweraqe etc. apant from creatinq chaos on

the roads. TfE pollution caused due to traffic

congestion affects the health of tlrc road users. The

pedestrians and people belonging to weaker

secfions of the society, utho cannot afford the

hxury of air- conditioned cars, are the worst

uictim.s of pollution. TtEg suffer from skin diseases

of different types, asthma, allergies and euen more

dreaded drseases like cancer. It can only be a

matter of imagination how much the gouernment

hoos to spend on the treatment of such persons and

aLso for controlling pollution and aduerse irnpact on

th.e enuironment due to traffic congestion on the

rood.s and chaotic anditions created due to illegal

and unauthorized constructions. Thls Court hq,s.

from time to tlme. taken coonizance of

bulldlnos constntcted ln viotation of

munlcipal and, other lauts and emohaslzed,

that no comoromise should, be made wlth the

toutn plo;nnlno scheme and no relief should be

qiaen to the tlolator of the town plcrln,ninq

scheme etc. on the qround that he ha,s spent

substantial o;mount on constntction of the

bulldings etc. - K. Ro,mdo,s Shenou u. Chief

Officers. Toutn Municipal Council, Udipi l9T4

l2l SCC 5O6. Dr. G.N. Khaiuria v. Delhi

i

I

lr

14

Sto;teof

lgt scc 208.

53. Unforunately, despite repeated jud.gments bg

tle this Court and High Courts, the builders and.

other afflaent people engaged in the constntction

actiuities, who haue, ouer the Aears shown scanf

respect

for regulatory mechanism envisaged in the

municipal and other similar lanas, as also the

master plans, zonal deuelopment plans,

sanrcttoned plans etc., haue receiued

enauragement and support from the State

apparatus As and when the courts haue passed.

orders or the offtcers of locat and otle,r bod.ies haue

taken action for ensuring rigorous compliance of

laws relating to planned deuelopment of the cittes

and urban areas and rssued directions for

demolition of tle iilegal/unauthorized

constructions, fhose in power haue come forutard.

to protect the u)rong doers either by issuing

administratiue orders or enacting laws for

regularizatton of illegal and. unauthorized.

constructions in the name of compassion and.

hardship. Such actions ltaue done irreparable

harm to th.e concept of planned deuelopment of the

cities and urban areas. It is hiqh tlme that the

exeattlae and oolltlcal apoardtus of the State

take serTous uleut of the menace of illeoal and,

unauthorized consfiuctions and stoo thelr

suooot't, to the lobbies of affluent class of

.

a.

,::;ileta;+d

L5

22- Further, the Hontle Supreme Court in Esha Ekta

Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Vs. lVlunicipal Corporation of Mumbai and Ors (2013) 5

SCC 357, held that Constitutional Courts ought not to

exer<:ise their equitable jurisdiction to regularize illegal and

unatrthorized constructions. The relevant observations are

as under:

"45. In uiew of the aboue discusslon, we hold that

the Petitioners in the transfened case haue failed

to make out a case for directing the Respondents

to regularize the construction made in uiolation of

the sanctioned plan. Rather, the ratio of the aboue-

noted judgments and, in partiatlar, Royal Paradise

Hotel (P) Ltd. u. State of Haryana and Ors. (supra)

is clearlg attracted in tlrc present co.se. We would,

like to reiterate tlut tto authority

adrninistering municipal laws and other

sim;llor laws can encourage ulolation of the

sanctloned ptan. The Courts are also

expected. to refrain frcn exerclsing equitable

jurisdiction for regularization of illegal and

unquthorized, constrrzctions else it would

encourage aiolators of the planning laws and

destrog the aery ldea and concept of planned.

d.euelopment of urban as well as ntro,l o,rerzs.'

(emphasis supplled)"

11. It is ak;o relevant to refer to the orders passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme court in writ Petition (civilf No.295 of 2ol22 l2o24INsc

8661 (Bulldo:zer's Casef, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave

certain directions and guidelines to the Government for manner of

proceeding in demolition of the unauthorized construction.

16

12. Since the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955 mandates issuance

of notice to the person concerned and the GHMC authorities are

empowered to examine and decide the issue with respect to

unauthorized constructions, by issuing notice to the concerned

parties, the respondent authorities are directed to issue notice to the

concerned parties and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance

with law. As such, in the present case, issuance of notice to

respondent No.4 is dispensed with.

13. Having considered the above facts and circumstance, recording

the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side,

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and since

the respondent No.3 had issued a speaking order dated 2g.o3.2026,

after considering judicial precedents referred to hereinabove, this

Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the

respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's complaint dated

15.03.2026 and after giving fair opportunity of hearing to petitioner

and respondent No.4 and after verifying the relevant documents, shall

pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (04)

weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and

communicate the same to the petitioner. Since the subject property

falls under the Tarnaka zorle, Deputy commissioner, circle-43,

Tarnaka, secunderabad zorte, GHMC be added as party respondent to

17

this writ petition, for effective implementation of the directions passed

by this Court. Registry is directed to make necessary amendments.

14. It is mzrde clear that if the allegations made by the petitioner are

found to be true, the respondent authorities shall take appropriate

action strictlv in accordance with law and in exercise of taking such

action agains;t respondent No.4; if any expenses are incurred, the

same shall be recovered from the respondent No.4.

15. It is also clarified that in the event of respondent No.4 is

otherwise agllrieved may avail remedy of filing application seeking

modification of this order, in accordance with Iaw.

16. With ttre above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending

in this LeliligrL rhe[stand closed.

.C SULEKHA DEVI

REGISTRAR

/ffRUE COPY//

To

SECTION OFFICER

1

2

3.

4. One Crl to SRtVIJAY GOPAL, Advocate IOPUCI

5. Two Crls to Gp FoR McpL ADM.N & URBAN oev, Hign court for the State

^

qf Te!-a19aLar?!H_yderabad.

TOUTI

6. One C(l to SRI KISHORE KU[,|AR,'SC FOR GHMC tOpUC]

7. Two CD Copies

PSK./PMK

(J.

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710412026

WP.No.10456 of 2026

ISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

ITHOI'T COSTS

oF'l

.S."*

..S

\'

-

ti

.L

t-

i1s\

IH+

C@"0)

ftu

^\&g

w-