E. Rajeshwar vs T. Rajitha
2025 Latest Caselaw 6628 Tel

Telangana High Court

E. Rajeshwar vs T. Rajitha on 20 November, 2025

     THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
                         AND
       THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

                       WRIT APPEAL No.1285 OF 2025
Mr.T.Surya Satish, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

Ms.Seema Yasmeen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

Ms.Y.Nishitha Manvi, learned counsel representing Mr.M.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent Nos.3-5.


JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an interim order passed by a

learned Single Judge of this Court on 06.10.2025 in W.P.No.13524

of 2025, directing the respondent Nos.4 and 5 viz., the GHMC,

Zonal Commissioner, Khairatabad Zone and the Assistant Medical

Officer of Health, GHMC, Khairatabad, Hyderabad to ensure that

the appellants do not run any Tiffin Centre/Canteen in the

premises adjacent to the property of the respondent No.1/Writ

Petitioner. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were also granted permission

to take Police help for this purpose, if required.

2. The grievance of the respondent No.1/ Writ Petitioner before

the learned Single Judge was that the Tiffin Center is being run by

the appellants in illegal occupation of the public road which has

caused immense disruption to the flow of traffic as well as public

nuisance due to the gathering of a large number of persons and

vehicles in front of the appellants' house.

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants

and the respondents.

4. Considering the impugned order being interim in nature and

the Writ Petition having been made returnable on 03.11.2025 by

the learned Single Judge, we do not wish to enter the merits of the

Writ Appeal.

5. We are of the opinion that the disputes raised by the

respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner can be addressed by the

Undertaking filed in Court today on behalf of the appellants. The

Undertaking specifically states that the appellants shall continue

running the Tiffin Center business from within the appellants'

residential premises and will not conduct such business on the

public road.

6. Needless to say the respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner shall be

at liberty to bring all possible violations of the Undertaking before

the learned Single Judge.

7. The GHMC is directed to remove the seal/lock put on the

appellants' premises pursuant to the impugned order.

8. W.A.No.No.1285 of 2025, along with all connected

applications, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order

as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J

_____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J DATE: 20.11.2025 Vsv