Hyderabad, October 7, 2026: A Town Planning Supervisor working with the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) was allegedly caught red-handed by the Telangana Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) while accepting a ₹4 lakh bribe in Hyderabad. The action took place after the ACB received a complaint alleging a demand for money in connection with building construction.
The accused official has been identified as Tulasiram Sunitha, a Town Planning Supervisor associated with Circle-33 of the GHMC’s Golkonda Zone. According to the ACB and reports based on its statement, the officer allegedly demanded a total bribe of ₹8 lakh from a complainant in exchange for extending official favour regarding construction activity.
₹8 lakh allegedly demanded for official favour
According to the ACB, the alleged demand was connected with the complainant’s building construction. The officer allegedly agreed to overlook speaking orders issued by the GHMC Deputy Commissioner, allow the complainant to proceed with construction and refrain from causing further harassment.The official also allegedly promised to extend cooperation to the complainant in the future. Based on the complaint, ACB officials decided to verify the allegations and subsequently planned a trap operation.
ACB lays trap in Mehdipatnam
The trap was conducted by ACB City Range-I officials at the GHMC Golkonda Zone office in Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. During the operation, Sunitha was allegedly caught while accepting ₹4 lakh, described as the first instalment of the alleged ₹8 lakh bribe. The ACB recovered the tainted cash from her possession.The operation is part of the ACB’s efforts to take action against officials suspected of demanding or accepting illegal gratification in exchange for performing or withholding official duties.
₹2.5 lakh unaccounted cash also seized
The case took another turn when ACB officials reportedly found an additional ₹2.5 lakh in unaccounted cash in the officer’s possession during the operation. The amount was seized by the investigators. The ACB stated that the officer had allegedly acted improperly and dishonestly in the discharge of her official duties to obtain an undue advantage. The recovery of the additional cash is now part of the investigation, while authorities examine the circumstances surrounding the alleged bribe demand and the money found during the trap.
Officer remanded to judicial custody
Following the trap, Sunitha was produced before the I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Nampally. According to The New Indian Express, she was subsequently remanded in judicial custody. The case remains under investigation, and further action will depend on the findings of the ACB investigation and subsequent legal proceedings.
What the case highlights
The incident once again puts the spotlight on corruption risks surrounding civic and town-planning processes, particularly those involving building construction and regulatory permissions. Town-planning officials deal with matters such as construction permissions, building regulations and enforcement. Allegations of illegal payments in such matters can create serious difficulties for citizens and undermine confidence in municipal administration.
Anti-corruption agencies such as the Telangana ACB investigate complaints of alleged bribery and conduct trap operations when there is sufficient basis to proceed. In this case, the ACB’s trap resulted in the alleged recovery of ₹4 lakh from the officer, along with the reported seizure of ₹2.5 lakh in unaccounted cash. It is important to note that the allegations against the officer are part of an ongoing legal process. Being caught in an ACB trap does not by itself constitute a final conviction. The evidence collected during the investigation and the subsequent court proceedings will determine the outcome of the case. The development comes as authorities continue to emphasise stricter action against corruption in public offices. For citizens dealing with municipal permissions and construction-related matters, the case also highlights the importance of reporting alleged demands for illegal payments to the appropriate anti-corruption authorities.