Telangana High Court Issues Final Deadline in GHMC Merger Dispute
The Telangana High Court has delivered a decisive ruling, granting the state government a final opportunity to submit its responses in a significant batch of petitions. These legal challenges contest the controversial merger of panchayats, municipalities, and municipal corporations located within the Outer Ring Road limits into the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC).
Court's Stern Directive and Timeline
A bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin explicitly stated, "By way of last indulgence, one week time is allowed to the respondents (state) to file a counter-affidavit." This directive underscores the court's patience wearing thin after previous extensions. Following the state's submission, the petitioners will be granted an additional week to file their replies, if necessary. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing, marking a critical juncture in this protracted legal battle.
Background of the Petitions and Key Petitioner
The petitions challenge the Telangana Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2026, and amendments to the Telangana Municipal Act, 2019. These legislative changes initiated the merger process, which petitioners argue is unconstitutional. Among the petitioners is 98-year-old farmer MA Shareef from Ailapur, Ameenpur, whose farmhouse was demolished by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HYDRAA) on April 11. His case highlights the human impact of the merger and subsequent actions.
Status Quo on Demolitions and Court's Earlier Intervention
In Shareef's specific case, the high court had previously ordered a status quo on demolitions. In a strongly worded order, the court directed HYDRAA to refrain from demolishing any unauthorized constructions. The authority was instructed to confine its activities to works on nalas, canals, and public spaces until it presented its standard operating procedures to the court. This intervention reflects the judiciary's scrutiny of executive actions in the context of the merger.
State's Repeated Requests for Extensions
During the hearing on April 16, Assistant Government Pleader C Ravi Kumar, representing the state, requested additional time to file a counter-affidavit. The bench considered this plea and issued the current directions. This marks the third extension granted to the state. Initially, on February 16, the court directed the state to file counters within three weeks. When the case was heard again on March 24, a further two-week extension was allowed upon the state's request for more time.
Constitutional and Procedural Challenges
The petitioners have raised substantial legal arguments, contending that the amendments are unconstitutional, arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. They allege that the amendments were enacted without conducting the mandatory preliminary exercises required by law. Furthermore, petitioners assert that no prior notice was issued to residents of the affected gram panchayats, municipalities, and municipal corporations before their merger into the urban core area. These allegations point to potential procedural lapses and disregard for democratic norms in the merger process.
This case continues to draw significant attention as it involves fundamental questions of governance, urban planning, and constitutional rights in Telangana.
