logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 050 print Preview print print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Writ Petition No. 2283 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Parties : Jinna Srinivas Reddy & Another Versus The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: G. Satish Babu, Advocate. For the Respondent: Admn Urban Dev, Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 29-01-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Judgment :-

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri A. Veeresh Kumar, learned standing counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board appearing for respondent No.2, Sri K. Ravi Mahender, learned standing counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short “GHMC”) appearing for respondent No.3. With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.2 directing the petitioners to pay an abnormal amount of Rs.13,73,250/- on or before 07.02.2026 vide petitioner’s application bearing File No.2025-11-167 for sanction of Water supply, Sewerage Connection for the petitioners residential building at H.No.5-5-35/306/1, P.No.78, Sy.No.454/A, 454/B, 454/C, 474/B, Saibaba Colony, Phase-I, Kukatpally Village, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District as being illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court to the whatsapp message dated 12.12.2025 wherein 2nd respondent had directed to pay Rs.13,73,250/- towards connection sundry charges on or before 07.02.2026 in reference to application vide File No.2025-11-167. Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing at length, seeks permission of this Court to make application to the respondent No.2 questioning the quantum of charges to be paid for the purpose of connections applied vide application No. 2025-11-167.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that to the extent of the application if any made by the petitioners, the same will be considered and appropriate orders would be passed.

5. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with consent granting liberty to the petitioners to make representation before the respondent No.2 with respect to application No.2025-11-167. Further, if any such representation is made by the petitioners, the respondent authorities shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.

6. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of with consent.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal