Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Acts
  • Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955,
  • provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Art.14 and Art. 300-A of Constitution of India
  • Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Acts
  • Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955,
  • provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Art.14 and Art. 300-A of Constitution of India
  • Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    M/s Varun Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

    HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

    AT HYDERABAD

    THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.42335 of 2017

    DATE OF ORDER : 24.02.2026

    Between:

    M/s Varun Motors Pvt. Ltd., 1-10-177, Varun Towers, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Executive Director, Sri V.R.C.Raju, S/o. Venkam Raju, Aged about 54 years

    .. Petitioner

    And

    The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others .. Respondents

    ORDER:

    This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

    "…to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in issuing Notice No.22424/ GHMC/TPS/C18/2017 dated 11.12.2017 under Sec.636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Art.14 and Art. 300-A of Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders…"

    2. Heard Mr. V.R.N.Prashanth, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel

    1

    2

    for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. Yaseen Abbas Khan, learned counsel, representing Mr. Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

    3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that notice dated 11.12.2017 issued to petitioner under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, was under challenge in the said writ petition. It is further submitted that the notice was issued for alleged construction of boundary wall. It is also submitted that as there was no interim order, petitioner on his own removed the boundary wall, hence, the cause in the writ petition does not survive and the writ petition be closed.

    4. In view of the above, the writ petition stands closed. No order as to costs.

    Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

    __________________________

    ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J

    3

    36

    THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.42335 of 2017

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    M/s Varun Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Telangana
    (Feb 24, 2026)