1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondent No.3 in issuing impugned speaking order dated 09.04.2026.

2. This writ petition is taken as House Motion.

3. Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Santosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel representing Mr.P.Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners have applied for two (2) construction permissions for stilt + 2 upper floors each and thereafter clubbed the said 2 building permissions and constructed additional floors. In that regard, respondent authorities have issued speaking order dated 09.04.2026 directing the petitioners to remove the unauthorized constructions within a period of 15 days failing which the respondent authorities will take appropriate steps to remove the said unauthorized constructions. It is submitted that pursuant to the said notice, petitioner had submitted explanation dated 13.04.2026. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though explanation was submitted to respondent No.3 on 13.04.2026, there was threat of demolition by the respondent authorities.

5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to consider the explanation of the petitioner dated 13.04.2026 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till then, status quo as on date shall be maintained by both the parties. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.