High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 TEL CK 1381

Dindi Siva Krishna vs State of Telangana & Others

Telangana High Court · Decided on 8 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
B. Vijaysen Reddy, J
RESULT
Disposed of
CASE NUMBER
WRIT PETITION NO: 29695 OF 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 285 words

Heard Mr. Nyayapathi Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, and perused the material available on record.

2.

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner against respondent No.5 alleging illegal/unauthorised construction of a cellar in the subject Plot No.22, Survey No.134, situated at Neknampur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, show cause notice bearing No.22/NEK/C-45/TPS/CMC/2026, dated 31.08.2026, has been issued. He further submitted that appropriate action, in accordance with law, will be taken pursuant to the said notice.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after issuance of show cause notice, respondent No.5 is proceeding with unauthorised construction.

4.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.4 - Deputy Commissioner, Circle-45, Narsingi, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, to take appropriate steps to stop illegal/unauthorised construction, if any, being carried out by respondent No.5 in the subject property. Further enquiry pursuant to the show cause notice dated 31.08.2026 shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.5. As this order is passed without entering into the merits of the case, notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with. However, if respondent No.5 is in any way aggrieved by this order, he is at liberty to approach this Court seeking modification of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed.