JUDGMENT : (Surepalli Nanda, J.) Heard Sri M. Damodhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Smt. Ch. Vijaya Laxmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondent No.4. PERUSED THE RECORD:- 2. The present writ appeal is filed by the appellant seeking prayer as under:- “…to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated 02.05.2025 in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge and continue the earlier status-quo order dated 26.03.2025 in WP No.9273/2005 as it is, and pass…” 3 . The appellant in the present Writ Appeal is the petitioner in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 and the said W.P. had been filed seeking prayer as under:- “…..to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent in issuing the impugned order dated 10/03/2025 in file No. 10/RDMA/A1/2025 and consequential notice of demolition issued by the 3rd respondent Municipality in file No. G1/67/2024 dated 18/03/2025 in ordering to demolish the alleged deviations to the construction of the House No. 148 at Vidyanagar Colony Kothakota Municipality and Mandal Wanaparthy District though the petitioner obtained construction permission in the year 2019 and complete the construction 2020 in his own property without encroaching any bodies property and further though the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents have not recorded any finding as to whether the said alleged deviations are being caused any inconvenience to the public as illegal unlawful contrary to law and consequently direct the 3 rd respondent municipality to withdraw all cases as against the construction of house No. 148 which the petitioner admittedly constructed by obtaining the Construction permission and pass…” 4. The orders impugned in the present Writ Appeal, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 is extracted hereunder: “Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the Speaking Order dated 10.03.2025. As seen from the contents of the said order, it is evident that several speaking orders have been passed in pursuance of order passed in WP.No.36611 of 2024 and WP.No.486 of 2025. As seen from the contents of the said order, it is evident that several speaking orders have been passed in pursuance of order passed in WP.No.36611 of 2024 and WP.No.486 of 2025. After giving detailed hearing, conclusion has been recorded in paras 5 and 6 of the order by the respondent No.2 holding that the petitioner herein has not denied about the deviations made to the building construction and even after giving enough opportunities, he failed to provide any valid proof. The panchanama conducted on 20.12.2024 by the District Task Force also established deviations in the structures. It was also held that speaking orders were passed in accordance with law. In view of the above, status quo order dated 26.03.2025 is vacated. List on 25.06.2025.” 5. The orders passed initially in favour of the appellant/ writ petitioner, dated 26.03.2025 in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 are extracted hereunder:- Notice to respondent No.4. Personal notice to respondent No.4 permitted. Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents No.3 - municipality, seeks time to get instructions. Status quo, obtaining as on today, shall be maintained in respect of the property, bearing House No.14-8. Vidyanagar Colony, Kothakota Municipality and Mandal" Wanaparthy District, until further orders. List on 16.04.2025. 6. The order dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13536 of 2025 filed by the 4 th respondent is extracted herein:- “In view of the order passed by this Court in WP. No. 9273 of 2025 dated 02.05.2025, there shall be interim direction to the respondent No.4 to implement the speaking order dated 10.03.2025, as expeditiously as possible and file compliance report before this Court by the next date of hearing. List on 25.06.2025.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- DISCUSSION:- 7. No. 9273 of 2025 dated 02.05.2025, there shall be interim direction to the respondent No.4 to implement the speaking order dated 10.03.2025, as expeditiously as possible and file compliance report before this Court by the next date of hearing. List on 25.06.2025.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- DISCUSSION:- 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ writ petitioner mainly puts-forth the following submissions:- i) The order impugned, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 vacating the status-quo order, dated 26.03.2025 causes serious injustice and irreparable injury to the appellant/ writ petitioner since in view of the said order, the 3 rd respondent municipality is ready with demolition of the house property of the petitioner bearing No.14-8 as per speaking order, 18.03.2025 issued to the appellant/ petitioner by the Commissioner, Kothakota Municipality directing the appellant/writ petitioner to rectify deviations and remove the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of said order, dated 18.03.2025 failing which action would be initiated against the appellant/ petitioner under the Telangana Municipality Act , 2019 and TGbPASS Act, 2020. ii) This Court while vacating the interim order of status-quo, dated 26.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 vide its order, dated 02.05.2025 failed to take note the fact as borne on record that the 4 th respondent did not file any vacate stay petition seeking vacation of the interim order, dated 22.03.2025 nor the official respondents thereunder and hence, the Writ Petition itself i.e., W.P.No.9273 of 2025 ought to have been disposed of finally by the Court expeditiously without giving any scope for the 3 rd respondent municipality to proceed with the demolition of the subject property of the petitioner till W.P.No.9273 of 2025 is adjudicated and decided on merits finally by this Court. iii) This Court while vacating the interim orders, dated 26.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 granted initially in faovur of the appellant/ writ petitioner failed to give credence to the fact as borne on record that neither the official respondents nor the unofficial 4 th respondent had filed their counter in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 and therefore, the order impugned, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 had been passed hastily and mechanically in a routine manner. iv) This Court while vacating the interim orders of status-quo, dated 26.03.2025 in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 vide its order, dated 02.05.2025 failed to take note of the fact as borne on record that this Court on the same day i.e., on 02.05.2025 entertained the W.P. filed by the 4 th respondent herein and granted interim orders in favour of the 4 th respondent vide its order, dated 02.05.2025 observing as under:- “In view of the order passed by this Court in WP. No. 9273 of 2025 dated 02.05.2025, there shall be interim direction to the respondent No.4 to implement the speaking order dated 10.03.2025, as expeditiously as possible and file compliance report before this Court by the next date of hearing. List on 25.06.2025.” and by virtue of the said orders, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13536 of 2025, the appellant/writ petitioner herein is facing threat of demolition in respect of appellant/ petitioner’s house property by the 3 rd respondent municipality as per the speaking orders, dated 10.03.2025 of the Regional Director- cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Hyderabad. v) This Court while vacating the order of status-quo, dated 26.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 vide its order, dated 02.05.2025 failed to determine an important question and record its finding as to whether the alleged deviations are causing nuisance to the public as alleged by the unofficial 4 th respondent herein or they are minor in nature or minimal which do not effect public at large and accordingly, the alleged deviations are not liable to be demolished. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ writ petitioner contended that the Writ Appeal needs to be allow ed as prayed for. 8. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.4 mainly puts-forth the following submissions:- i) There is no illegality in the order impugned, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025, on the ground that the panchanama conducted on 20.12.2024 by the District Task Force established deviations in the structures. ii) The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are bound to implement the speaking orders, dated 10.03.2025 issued against the appellant/ petitioner herein by the 2 nd respondent herein, even as per the orders of this Court, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13536 of 2025. ii) The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are bound to implement the speaking orders, dated 10.03.2025 issued against the appellant/ petitioner herein by the 2 nd respondent herein, even as per the orders of this Court, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13536 of 2025. iii) The appellant/ Writ Petitioner had not denied about the deviations made to the building constructions even after providing ample opportunities, therefore, the order impugned, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 in the present Writ Appeal warrants no interference by this Court. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.4 contend that the present Writ Appeal has to be dismissed in limini. CONCLUSION:- 9. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the appellant/ writ petitioner filed W.P.No.9273 of 2025 declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent in issuing the impugned order, dated 10.03.2025 and the consequential notice of demolition issued by the 3 rd respondent municipality in File No.G1/ 67/ 2024, dated 18.03.2025 in ordering to demolish the alleged deviations to the construction of the house No.14-8 at Vidyanagar Colony, Kothakota municipality and Mandal, Wanaparthy District though the appellant/ writ petitioner obtained construction permission in the year 2019 and completed the construction in the year 2020, and initially the appellant/ writ petitioner obtained an order of status- quo in his favour vide order, dated 26.03.2025 in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 and the same w as vacated on 02.05.2025 without there being any vacate stay petition filed by either of the official respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein nor the unofficial respondent No.4 herein. I t is also borne on record that none of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein had filed their counter affidavits denying the averments made by the appellant/ writ petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.9273 of 2025. 10. 1 to 3 herein nor the unofficial respondent No.4 herein. I t is also borne on record that none of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein had filed their counter affidavits denying the averments made by the appellant/ writ petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.9273 of 2025. 10. I t is also pertinent to note that this Court vide its order, dated 02.05.2025 in W.P.No.13536 of 2025 filed by the 4 th respondent herein passed orders in favour of the unofficial respondent No.4 herein and directed the 4 th respondent thereunder i.e., the Municipal Commissioner, Kothakota Municipality, Wanaparthy District in W.P.No.13536 of 2025 to implement the speaking order, dated 10.03.2025 impugned by the appellant/ writ petitioner in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible and file compliance report before the Court in W.P.No.13536 of 2025 by the next date of hearing i.e., 25.06.2025. 11. This Court opines by virtue of the order impugned, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 vacating the order of status-quo, dated 26.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 and by virtue of the order, dated 02.05.2025 passed in favour of the 4 th respondent in W.P.No.13536 of 2025, the appellant/writ petitioner is facing threat of demolition of the house property of the appellant/ writ petitioner bearing No.14-8, as per the impugned order, dated 10.03.2025 of the 2 nd respondent and the consequential notice of demolition issued by the 3 rd respondent municipality in File No.G1/ 67/ 2024, dated 18.03.2025 impugned the appellant/ writ petitioner in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 without adjudicating the subject issue in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 finally, without counter affidavits being filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the said Writ Petition, without even a finding having been recorded by the Court on merits pertaining to the alleged deviations. 12. 12. This Court opines that by virtue of the order impugned in the present Writ Appeal, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 and the order, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13536 of 2025, the 3 rd respondent municipality would proceed with demolition of the subject house property of the appellant/writ petitioner as per orders dated 10.03.2025 & 18.03.2025 impugned by the appellant/ writ petitioner in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 without there being adjudication and final disposal of W.P.No.9273 of 2025 on merits, since admittedly as borne on record, no counter affidavits or vacate stay petitions had been filed either by the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein or unofficial respondent No.4 herein in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 as on 02.05.2025. Under these circumstances, this Court opines that the appellants are entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Appeal. 13. Taking into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.4 c) The order impugned in the present Writ Appeal, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 d) The status-quo order, dated 26.03.2025 passed earlier in W.P.No.9273 of 2025(referred to and extracted above) e) The orders impugned, dated 10.03.2025 of the 2 nd respondent and the consequential notice of demolition issued by the 3 rd respondent municipality in File No.G1/ 67/ 2024, dated 18.03.2025 impugned in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 by the appellant/ petitioner herein. f) The order, dated 02.05.2025 passed in favour of the 4 th respondent herein in W.P.No.13536 of 2025 (referred to and extracted above) filed by the 4 th respondent herein. g) I n view of the discussion, reasoning and conclusion as arrived at para Nos.6 to 11 of the present judgment. f) The order, dated 02.05.2025 passed in favour of the 4 th respondent herein in W.P.No.13536 of 2025 (referred to and extracted above) filed by the 4 th respondent herein. g) I n view of the discussion, reasoning and conclusion as arrived at para Nos.6 to 11 of the present judgment. The Writ Appeal is allowed, the order impugned, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 vacating the earlier status-quo order, dated 26.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 is set- aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for final adjudication and disposal of W.P.No.9273 of 2025 on merits expeditiously in accordance to law by providing reasonable opportunity of filing of counter affidavits by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the subject property i.e., house property bearing No.14-8, at Vidyanagar Colony, Kothakota Municipality and Mandal, Wanaparthy District, till the Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.9273 of 2025 is disposed of finally, as per the specific directions as stipulated as above within the time period as indicated as above. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.