[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
M. Chandrashekar Reddy vs Smt. Ineni Shyamala on 16 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No. 389 of 2026
DATED : 16.04.2026
Between:
M. Chandrashekar Reddy and another
... Appellants
AND
Smt. Ineni Shyamala and eight others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri Srinivas Karra, learned counsel for appellants,
Sri R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1
to 5/writ petitioners and Sri K. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing
Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for
respondent Nos.7 to 9.
2. The appellants, who were impleaded as respondent Nos.5 and 6
in Writ Petition No.9171 of 2026, have preferred the present Writ
Appeal against the interim order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the learned
writ Court in Writ Petition No.9171 of 2026 directing them to stop the
construction activity on the subject property pursuant to the building
2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
permit order dated 13.11.2025 granted in their favour by the Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Corporation).
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contends that when
Writ Petition No.9171 of 2026 was taken up on the first day on the
prayer of respondent Nos.1 to 5/writ petitioners that the authorities of
the Corporation are not disposing of their complaint and not cancelling
the building permit order dated 13.11.2025 issued to the
appellants/respondent Nos.5 and 6, the learned writ Court vide
impugned interim order dated 26.03.2026 was pleased to direct
respondent No.9 - Chief City Planner of the Corporation to conclude the
hearing of the objections of respondent Nos.1 to 5/writ petitioners as
expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The learned writ Court also
proceeded to direct the appellants/respondent Nos.5 and 6 not to make
any further construction on the subject property though no notice was
issued upon them.
4. According to the appellants, interim directions passed
ex parte are causing sufferance to them due to stoppage of construction
activity in which the appellants had made substantial investment. It is
also pointed out that in respect of I.A.No.3 of 2026 in O.S.No.212 of
2021 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5/writ petitioners restraining the
appellants from proceeding with the construction activity, hearing had
3 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
been held on 19.02.2026. On a previous date i.e., 08.04.2026, after
hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, the respondent
Corporation and respondent Nos.1 to 5/writ petitioners, this matter was
adjourned for 09.04.2026 to enable the learned counsel for the
respondent Corporation to seek instructions as to the latest status of the
pending proceedings under Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). On the next date,
learned counsel for the respondent Corporation sought one more
indulgence, as, according to instructions, order on the application under
Section 450 of the Act was likely to be passed within a period of three to
four days as hearing was conducted on 28.03.2026. Today, when the
matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the respondent
Corporation submits that the order has not yet been passed which may
take few more days. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants therefore
prays that the order under appeal which has affected the interests of the
appellants may be set aside. Writ Petition No.9171 of 2026 itself can be
heard and decided after completion of pleadings by the learned counsel
for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5/writ petitioners has
objected to such prayer and sought to file counter-affidavit on the plea
of suppression of material facts while obtaining the building permit
order dated 13.11.2025 by the appellants. He has also prayed that since
4 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
the hearing has been concluded in the proceedings before the
Commissioner of the respondent Corporation, the matter can be
adjourned and heard on merits by this Court itself.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has prayed that
the matter be adjourned so that in the meantime, the order under Section
450 of the Act may be passed and brought on record.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and taken into
account the relevant materials which are necessary to decide the
challenge to the order under appeal dated 26.03.2026 passed by the
learned writ Court in Writ Petition No.9171 of 2026. From the
conspectus of facts and material available on record, it is clear that the
respondent Corporation has sanctioned the building permit order dated
13.11.2025 in favour of the appellants/respondent Nos.5 and 6 against
which respondent Nos.1 to 5/writ petitioners have filed objections under
Section 450 of the Act. Since the said proceedings were not being
concluded in a time bound manner, respondent Nos.1 to 5/writ
petitioners approached the learned writ Court for a direction upon the
respondent Corporation to conclude the proceedings expeditiously and
also for interim suspension of the building permit order dated
13.11.2025. However, it appears that on the date, when the matter was
taken up, the learned writ Court proceeded to pass an ex parte interim
direction upon respondent Nos.5 and 6 not to make any further
5 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
construction on the subject property, while issuing notice on them. The
order under appeal in that way adversely affects the interests of the
appellants/respondent Nos.5 and 6 who were carrying on construction
on the subject property vide building permit order dated 13.11.2025.
Respondent Nos.1 to 5/writ petitioners had primarily prayed for a
direction upon the authorities of the Corporation to consider their
objections to the said building permit order dated 13.11.2025 in an
expeditious manner. However, the learned writ Court while directing the
respondent Corporation to decide the objection expeditiously,
preferably, within four (4) weeks, also proceeded to direct respondent
Nos.5 and 6 not to make any further construction on the subject property
though it adversely affects their interests. We are therefore of the view
that the appellants are justified in assailing that part of the interim order
dated 26.03.2026 in the present Writ Appeal.
8. Since Writ Petition No.9171 of 2026 is pending before the
learned writ Court, we do not deem it necessary to enter into the merits
of the contentions of the parties in the present Writ Appeal which is
confined only to the legality and correctness of the order under appeal
passed against the appellants/respondent Nos.5 and 6. Therefore, the
order under appeal dated 26.03.2026 passed by the learned writ Court in
Writ Petition No.9171 of 2026 so far as it directs the
appellants/respondent Nos.5 and 6 not to make any further construction
6 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
on the subject property is set aside. Since Writ Petition No.9171 of 2026
is pending, the learned writ Court which would take a decision in
accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties. Let it be
made clear that we have not made any comment on the merits of the
case of the parties.
9. On request being made by the learned counsel for the parties, the
matter may be heard in an expeditious manner by the learned writ Court.
The instant Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
_____________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
16th APRIL, 2026.
kvni
