HYDERABAD: The Telangana high court on Tuesday came down heavily on a city-based businessman who had filed a petition challenging the legality of environmental clearances and building-related approvals granted for a major residential project in Hafeezpet, Serilingampally.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice P Sam Koshy warned the petitioner not to play with the courts and stated that they would be very harsh. “Your petitioner is repeatedly exposing himself to the wrath of the court. Whatever be the nuances, we shall dismiss the petition with heavy costs,” the bench remarked.
However, upon the petitioner’s counsel urging the court with an apology, the bench permitted withdrawal of the petition and let the petitioner off with a stern warning.
The petitioner had claimed that building approvals were issued in the names of individuals who were already deceased at the time. Claiming to be one of the landowners, the businessman filed the petition against the land developer, alleging that environmental clearances should not have been granted, as three out of the five GPA (General Power of Attorney) holders had passed away prior to the issuance of clearance.
Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, standing counsel for the Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TSPCB), submitted that there had been a significant delay in challenging a 2019 proceeding in the year 2025, and that despite an existing provision to approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the petitioner had instead moved the High Court.
State counsel further argued that the structure in question, a 14-storey building, was ready for occupation. “This is a private dispute between the petitioner and the builder. By bringing it before this court, the court’s valuable time is being misused. Not being satisfied with the high court’s decision in an earlier matter filed by the same petitioner, he has now filed the present petition,” he informed the court.
The high court observed that the petitioner had already approached other statutory bodies, including RERA, in connection with the matter, and had also previously filed a petition before the high court. In the present case, he had suppressed these facts. Permitting the petitioner to withdraw the case, the court disposed of the matter.
