Disposed

Smt. S.Adi Lakshmi, v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC13 Apr 2012WP/10555/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court observed that the respondent issued a notice without considering the petitioner's explanation which bore the respondent's office stamp. It directed the petitioner to submit the explanation and other relevant documents to the respondent within one week. The respondent was directed to consider these submissions and pass appropriate orders within another week. Demolition and further constru

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to submit explanation and documents within one week; respondent to consider and pass orders within one week thereafter; demolition and further construction restrained till orders.

Smt. S.Adi Lakshmi, Vs The Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.10555 of 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt.S.Adi Lakshmi and others … Petitioners and

¶8

The Commissioner, Tirupati Municpal Corporation, Tirupati, Chitoor District.

¶9

… Respondent

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶11

W.P. No.10555 of 2012

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Challenging the impugned notice dated 05.03.2012, issued by the respondent wherein the petitioners were asked to stop the construction, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

¶14

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that in connection with the construction made by them, the respondent authorities have earlier issued notice dated 05.12.2011 under Section 452(1) and 461 of the Municipal Corporation Act, asking the petitioners to submit explanation within seven days as to why the construction made by them shall not be removed as the construction is illegal and unauthorized. At this juncture, the petitioners filed

¶15

W.P. No.33639 of 2011 and this Court vide its order dated 21.12.2011, while disposing of the said writ petition directed the respondent to take appropriate decision on the impugned notice therein duly considering the explanation of the petitioners, within a period of three weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and till a decision is taken and an order is passed,

¶16

the building in question of the petitioners shall not be demolished.

¶17

It is further stated that the petitioners stated to have submitted their explanation dated 15.12.2011 requesting the respondent authority to stop all further action in respect of demolition of constructions as directed in the earlier notice. Without considering the said explanation, the respondent issued impugned notice dated

¶18

05.03.2012, which is bad and illegal. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in response to the notice dated 05.12.2011 issued by the respondent, the petitioners submitted explanation dated 15.12.2011 but the respondent authorities without considering the said explanation, issued the impugned notice dated 05.03.2012, which is in violation principles of natural justice. Therefore, he requested to set aside the impugned notice.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners made construction without any permission. Therefore, the authorities have issued statutory notice and thereafter, as there was no response from the petitioners, the respondent authorities have issued impugned notice. It is further submitted that the petitioners without submitting any explanation to the notice issued earlier, the petitioners have approached this Court and filed the W.P. No.33639 of 2011 that was disposed of by this Court on 21.12.2011, wherein directed the respondent to consider the explanation stated to have been submitted by the petitioners.

¶21

But, on verification, it is found that no such explanation has been received by the respondent’s office. Therefore, in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 21.12.2011, with a view to take further action, the impugned notice dated 05.03.2012 has been issued. The petitioners without submitting the explanation, approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶23

The main grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant to the notice dated 05.12.2011 issued by the respondent, the petitioners stated to have submitted their explanation. But the respondent authorities, without considering the same, issued the impugned notice dated 05.03.2012.

¶24

As could be seen from the material on record, it is clear that the petitioners submitted their explanation dated 15.12.2011, which contains the stamp of the respondent’s office. Further, from a perusal of the impugned notice dated 05.03.2012 it does not contain any reference with regard to the explanation stated to have been submitted by the petitioners. So, it is clear that the respondent authorities without considering the explanation of the petitioners, have issued the impugned notice.

¶25

In that view of the mater, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of as under.

¶26

The petitioners are directed to make available the copy of the explanation dated 15.12.2011 to the respondent, stated to have been submitted by them, and also other documents, which are relevant for consideration, within a period of one week, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and within one week thereafter, the respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondent authorities are restrained from demolishing the construction made by the petitioners. Further, till such time,

¶27

the petitioners also directed not to make any further construction.

¶28

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶30

Date: 13.04.2012

¶31

Note: Issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs. B/o. LSK

Smt. S.Adi Lakshmi, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. S.Adi Lakshmi, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangalagiri Krishna Vs Guntur Municipal Corporation

Smt. S. Rajasri Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

K. Kalyan Chakrawarthi Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Kolli Ratna Kumari, Vs The Greatr Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Ravula Venkata Reddy Vs The Vice Chairman

Shaik Ramjan Bee, Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation