1. Learned Senior Counsel Sri J.Ramachandra Rao, representing learned counsel Sri J.Sai Krishna, appears for the appellants.

Sri G.Bhaskar, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, appears for respondent No.1.

Learned counsel Sri V.Siddhartha Goud, representing Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), appears for respondent No.2.

Sri Krishna Maragani, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, appears for respondent No.3.

Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appears for respondents No.4 to 7.

Ms. Shanthi Neelam, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development Department, appears for respondents No.8 and 9.

Learned Senior Counsel Sri B.Mayur Reddy, representing learned counsel Sri M.Venkateshwarlu, appears for respondents No.10 to 15.

2. The order, dated 10.09.2026, passed by the learned writ court in the writ petition preferred by the appellants i.e., W.P.No.37150 of 2025, which is impugned in the present appeal, reads as under:

               “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned standing counsel for HMDA, Mr. M. Krishna, learned standing counsel for Bandanpet Municipal Corporation and Mr. V. Raghunath, learned senior counsel, appearing for Ms. V. Sanjana, learned counsel for the respondents No.10 to 15.

               2. Mr. V. Raghunath, learned senior counsel for respondents No.10 to 15, submitted that this Court passed order dated 04.12.2025 not to allow the respondents No.10 to 15 to undertake any development pending finalization of enquiry pursuant to show cause notice dated 25.06.2025. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 vide proceedings in Lr.No.2862 & 2863/Plg/SHZ/HMDA/2024 dated 04.04.2026 rejected the objections submitted by the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners filed WP.No.17103 of 2026 challenging the rejection letter dated 04.04.2026 wherein interim order was granted on 04.06.2026 and extended till 16.06.2026 but not extended thereafter.

               3. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in view of the order dated 04.04.2026, the cause in this writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and no further orders are required to be passed.

               Recording the aforesaid submission, the writ petition is closed and the interim order dated 04.12.2025 is vacated. The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as costs.”

3. W.P.No.37150 of 2025 was preferred with the following prayer:

               “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in granting Final Layout Approval vide Application No.014011/FLT/HMDA/3820/SMD/2024 dated 29.01.2025 and Draft Layout Approval vide Application No.009323/LO/HMDA/2037/SMD/2023 dated 24.04.2024 in favour of unofficial Respondents No.10 to 15 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Section 22 of the HMDA Act, 2008 and consequently to direct the HMDA authorities to revoke the Final Layout Approval vide Application No.014011/FLT/HMDA/3820/SMD/2024 dated 29.01.2025 and Draft Layout Approval vide Application No.009323/LO/HMDA/2037 /SMD/2023 dated 24.04.2024 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. The learned writ court granted interim relief on 04.12.2025 in the writ petition while issuing notice to the unofficial respondents. The respondent – HMDA has, during the pendency of the writ petition, passed a reasoned order on 04.04.2026 on the objections filed by appellants against the draft layout permission issued in favour of the unofficial respondents on the subject premises and disposed of the same observing that there were no merits and instructed them to approach the appropriate forum/civil court to redress their grievance. This order has been made subject matter of W.P.No.17103 of 2026 filed by the appellants.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the grievance of the appellants was on a larger issue in granting final layout approval dated 29.01.2025 and also the draft layout approval dated 24.04.2024 allegedly in violation of Section 22 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008. By passing of the reasoned order on the aforesaid subject, the grievance of the appellants was not substantially addressed. Therefore, closure of the writ petition by the learned writ court was not proper in the eye of law.

6. Learned counsel appearing for HMDA submits that the reasoned order is on the very same subject of the approval of the draft layout plan wherein the authority has, after taking note of the relevant factors and the objections, not found any merit therein. This has led to a fresh cause of action which has been assailed by the appellants in W.P.No.17103 of 2026.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the unofficial respondents submits that the appellants initially got an ex parte interim order in the new writ petition, which, however, was not extended once the unofficial respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. Thereafter, the appellants have approached this court in appeal to seek interim protection in the writ petition which had essentially become infructuous upon passing of the reasoned order on the representation of the appellants on the same subject.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are willing to take all such grounds as were raised in the instant writ petition in W.P.No.17103 of 2026, where the reasoned order is under challenge. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that till the time the said writ petition is taken up, the interim relief in the nature granted by the learned writ court earlier vide order dated 04.12.2025 may be continued.

9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

10. On a plain understanding of the nature of the challenge herein, we are of the opinion that the respondent – HMDA has taken a decision on the very same issue of approval of draft layout plan on the objections of the appellants during the pendency of the instant writ petition, which is now made subject matter of a fresh writ petition. The appellants have consciously chosen to file a fresh writ petition instead of seeking amendment in the instant writ petition to challenge the reasoned order. Once a fresh cause of action is being agitated in a new writ petition, all those grounds which are available to the appellants are open to be raised in W.P.No.17103 of 2026 pending before the learned writ court. By the impugned order, the learned writ court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the parties. As such, it is all the more open for the appellants to raise such grounds as are available in the pending writ petition on the question of grant of final layout approval/draft layout approval. The request of interim relief is also open for being raised before the learned writ court in the pending writ petition. If so warranted, the appellants may seek amendment in the pending writ petition to raise such other grounds as are available to them.

11. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.