Mamidi Omprakash vs The State Of Telangana,
2025 Latest Caselaw 2383 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mamidi Omprakash vs The State Of Telangana, on 20 February, 2025

     THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                            AND
           THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

                    WRIT APPEAL No.332 of 2024

JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):

Sri C. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel represents Sri

K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the appellants; Ms.T.V.

Sudha, learned counsel represents Sri V. Narasimha Goud,

learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan

Development Authority (HMDA), for respondent No.2; Sri G.

Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), for respondent Nos.3

to 6 and Sri Harender Pershad, learned Senior Counsel

represents Sri D. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for

respondent No.7.

2. Heard on admission.

3. In the present appeal, the subject matter of challenge is

the order of learned Single Judge dated 22.01.2024 passed in

W.P.No.8474 of 2023, which reads thus:

"The petitioners in this Writ Petition have called in question the speaking orders passed by respondent No.3 dated 28-02-2023, 27-02- 2023, 06-03-2023 and 27-03-2023 directing for removal of alleged unauthorized constructions in respect of petitioners' plot bearing Nos.168, 212, 233, 234, 243, 250, 253, 260 and 423 in the layout in Sy.Nos.51, 52 and 53 part of

Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. During the course of hearing on admission on 28-03-2023, this Court, having noted that respondent No.3 had issued individual speaking orders to the petitioners directing them to remove the unauthorized constructions, observed that the petitioners, instead of filing a common Writ Petition, are required to file individual Writ Petitions against the individual speaking orders passed. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners on the said date informed the Court that the petitioners would be taking appropriate steps for questioning the impugned orders.

3. Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 7th respondent informed this Court today that subsequent to the aforesaid direction/observation by this Court, some of the petitioners have filed separate Writ Petitions vide W.P.Nos.10140 of 2023, 10164 of 2023, 16629 of 2023 and 10151 of 2023 whereby the speaking orders passed were called in question.

4. Having regard to the submissions made as above and also taking note of the fact that some of the petitioners have called in question the speaking order passed in their respective cases, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition as filed collectively by the petitioners challenging the individual speaking orders passed cannot be proceeded with and the same has become infructuous.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed as infructuous. No costs.

6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No costs."

4. During the course of hearing, it is pointed out that

appellant Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 of the instant writ appeal filed

W.P.Nos.16629, 10151, 10164 & 10140 of 2023 respectively,

which were decided by the learned Single Judge on 11.03.2024,

19.02.2024, 19.02.2024 & 01.02.2024 respectively on similar

lines. One such order in W.P.No.10140 of 2023 reads thus:

"This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in particular the 3rd respondent, in passing the speaking order dt.27.03.2023 vide Proc.No.7776/UC/2022 directing removal of the alleged unauthorized constructions, as being illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents No.3 to 6, Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7, and with their consent the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without delving into the merits of the matter, since the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Sections 654 and 655 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), against the impugned proceeding; that admittedly, the petitioner did not avail the said remedy; and that as it is not shown to this Court of the said remedy of appeal is inefficacious, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be relegated to avail the remedy of appeal under Sections 654 and 655 of the Act.

4. Since this Court is now relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is to be granted three (03) weeks time to avail the remedy of appeal before the concerned authority.

5. Accordingly, petitioner is granted three (03) weeks time, from the date of receipt of a copy of

this Court, to avail the remedy of appeal under Sections 654 and 655 of the Act, and on the petitioner filing such appeal before the concerned authority within the aforesaid period, the appeal shall be taken on record by the said authority without taking objection as to limitation. Further, since this Court is now relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, the respondents-authorities shall not give effect to the impugned order till the expiry of time as granted by this Court.

6. Subject to above observations and granting liberty to the petitioner as aforesaid, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

7. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.

8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed."

5. During the course of argument, it is not disputed that

the speaking orders which became subject matter of challenge in

case of appellant Nos.3, 4 and 6 in W.P.Nos.10151, 10164 &

10140 of 2023 are same/similar which have become subject

matter of challenge in W.P.No.8474 of 2023 filed by the present

appellants.

6. Learned Single Judge although held that the

W.P.No.8474 of 2023 has rendered infructuous, for all practical

purposes, the orders passed in W.P.Nos.16629, 10151, 10164 &

10140 of 2023 must govern their fate because subject matter of

challenge was the similar speaking orders passed by the

competent authority.

7. In W.P.Nos.16629, 10151, 10164 & 10140 of 2023, the

appellant Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 were granted three weeks time to

avail the remedy of appeal under Section 654 and 655 of the

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

Sri Harender Pershad, learned Senior Counsel for respondent

No.7 informed that in furtherance thereof, the writ petitioners in

W.P.Nos.10151, 10164 & 10140 of 2023, who are appellant

Nos.3, 4 and 6 herein, have already preferred appeals i.e.

M.A.Nos.52, 51 & 50 of 2024 respectively which came to be

dismissed on 19.09.2024.

8. Appellant Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6, in all fairness, should have

filed an additional affidavit in this writ appeal to apprise the

Court that they filed different writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.16629,

10151, 10164 & 10140 of 2023 which came to be disposed of by

orders dated 11.03.2024, 19.02.2024, 19.02.2024 & 01.02.2024

respectively.

9. Since the appellants herein are similarly situated and

appellant Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 have already tested the speaking

orders in W.P.Nos.16629, 10151, 10164 & 10140 of 2023, we

are only inclined to observe that the impugned order of learned

Single Judge whereby W.P.No.8474 of 2023 was held to be

infructuous shall stand modified by orders passed in

W.P.Nos.16629, 10151, 10164 & 10140 of 2023. No further

relief is due to the appellants.