1. This writ petition has being filed seeking the following prayer:-

               “to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners’ representations dated 04.04.2026 and 06.04.2026 and in attempting to interfere with and demolish the petitioners’ properties bearing Door Nos.6-18 (PTIN No.1169008462), 6-17 (PTIN No.1169000085), 6-16 (PTIN No.1169008459), 6-15 (PTIN No.1169008456), 6-14 (PTIN No.1169008454) and 6-1 (PTIN No.1169000077), situated at Sattarnagar, Bhupalpally, without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in clear violation of the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P No.10819 of 2017 and consequently direct the respondents to duly consider and dispose of the said representations in accordance with law within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court and not to take any coercive steps including demolition or dispossession without strictly adhering to due process of law.”

2. Brief facts as stated in this writ petition are that the petitioners’ claims to be the owners and possessors of the property bearing door Nos.6-18 (PTIN No.1169008462), 6-17 (PTIN No.1169000085), 6-16 (PTIN No.1169008459), 6-15 (PTIN No.1169008456), 6-14 (PTIN No.1169008454) and 6-13 (PTIN No.1169000077), situated at Sattarnagar, Bhupalpally. It is submitted that earlier when the respondent authorities under the guise of road widening from 65 feet to 80 feet were trying to demolish the subject property, petitioners’ filed W.P.No.10819 of 2017 and this Court vide order dated 27.03.2017 passed the following interim order:-

               “There shall be a direction to the respondents herein not to demolish the shops bearing Nos.6-17, 6-14, 6-16, 6-15 and 6-12, situated at Sattarnagar, Bhoopalpally, Jayashankar-Bhoopalpally District, belonging to the petitioners, respectively, for the purpose of widening of the road without following due process of law.

               However, this order will not preclude the respondents from proceeding further in accordance with law.”

3. The case of the petitioners is that inspite of the existing interim order dated 27.03.2017 in W.P.No.10819 of 2017, the newly elected Municipal Chairperson visited the subject property in the first week of April, 2026 and orally threatened the petitioners that the structures within the proposed junction area would be demolished. Hence, the petitioners’ on 01.04.2026 and 06.04.2026 made representations and requested respondent authorities not to go ahead with the illegal demolition of the subject property, however, the same are still pending for consideration. Aggrieved by pending consideration, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Though various grounds are raised in this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners restrict his prayer seeking direction to respondent authorities to consider the petitioners’ representations dated 01.04.2026 and 06.04.2026 and pass orders in a time bound period.

5. Heard and perused the material available on record.

6. Upon perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioners alleged that there are oral threats of immediate demolition of the subject property. Upon query raised by this Court whether the respondent authorities have initiated any steps to demolish the subject property, learned counsel for the petitioners did not answer the same. Thereafter another question was raised by this Court that what led the petitioners to file this writ petition at premature stage, learned counsel for the petitioners did not answer the same. Since the writ petition is filed at a premature stage, the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.