logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 247 print Preview print print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Writ Appeal No. 487 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
Parties : M/s. Vishnu Constructions Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P. Shashi Kiran, learned counsel. For the Respondents: Jayasree, learned Assistant Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 29-04-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Judgment :-

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Writ Appeal has been filed assailing an order dated 18.03.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.8215 of 2026.

2. The appellant/writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the authorities of the respondent No.4/Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) in preventing the appellant from erecting a Telecommunication Tower at Plot No.75, situated in Survey Nos.52 and 53, Yellareddyguda, Kapra, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, under the guise of a Show Cause Notice dated 10.09.2025, despite the submission of detailed replies dated 12.09.2025 and 29.09.2025 and an intimation of commencement of work dated 09.10.2025, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the respondent authorities/GHMC to consider the appellant’s replies dated 12.09.2025 and 29.09.2025. The respondent authorities were also directed to give a fair opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, and communicate the same to the appellant.

4. We are unable to understand as to how the appellant can be aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned direction does not fix a time frame within which the respondent authorities/GHMC shall consider the replies and pass a reasoned order.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the respondent authorities/GHMC will consider the appellant’s replies dated 12.09.2025 and 29.09.2025 and pass a reasoned order within three weeks from tomorrow i.e., 30.04.2026.

7. W.A.No.487 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly disposed of directing the respondent authorities/GHMC to consider the appellant’s replies dated 12.09.2025 and 29.09.2025 and pass a reasoned order within three weeks from tomorrow i.e., 30.04.2026. Needless to say, the respondent authorities/GHMC shall communicate its decision to the appellant within two days of taking such decision. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal