Telangana High Court
Gaddam Ramesh vs The State Of Telangana on 15 May, 2026
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
[ad_1]
Source link
