Plea against merger of 27 civic bodies into Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation: Telangana HC asks state to respond in 4 weeks

The petitioners claimed that, under the GHMC Act 1955, any alteration or expansion of city limits should be carried out only through a notification-based process, after consultation with the Corporation and subject to prior publication, to ensure transparency, public participation, and institutional consultation. These amendments, the petitioners claim, fundamentally alter the territorial jurisdiction, governance framework, and taxation regime of their area without complying with mandatory procedural safeguards.

Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate L Ravichander argued that Article 243Q required the constitution of any municipal corporation only in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and that such formation will have to be preceded by a notification by the governor after considering the population of the area, its density, revenue, and percentage of employment in non-agricultural activity.

Ravichander contended that the government clearly failed to follow the procedure prescribed by law, and the statute reflected the legislature’s failure to adhere to constitutional norms. He submitted that the procedure prescribed by law is a safeguard of the rule of law, and expressed his apprehension that an election notification, if issued now, would render the writ petition infructuous.

Advocate General A Sudershan Reddy, representing the Telangana Government, contended that there was nothing unconstitutional about the statute and sought at least four weeks to respond to the writ petition.

The bench accommodated an additional week for a reply, and posted the matter for further hearing on March 24.