The single judge dismissed the writ petition seeking mandamus for illegality of refusal to process a building permission application. The Court held that the claim was mere ipse dixit as there was no proof of refusal or adherence to required notice procedures. An accompanying interim petition was dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.39420 of 2015
04.12.2015
Between: Syed Khaleel .. Petitioner and The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Syed Moosa Kazeem Counsel for respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development (TS) Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3: --
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to receive and process the petitioner’s application for permission to construct building in schedule premises bearing No.22-3-947/34/1 at Purani Haveli, Hyderabad, over an extent of 112 sq. yds. of land without Town Survey and Land Records (TSLR) and No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Tahsildar or the Revenue Department as illegal and arbitrary.
In his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that when he sought to make an application for grant of building permission, respondent No.3 has refused to receive the same on the ground that he should produce TSLR and NOC from the Revenue Department.
At the hearing, when this Court queried whether the petitioner has any proof of refusal of his application by respondent No.3, the learned counsel representing him has replied in the negative.
In my opinion, this Court will not entertain a writ petition merely on the ipse dixit of a party, unless the same is supported by prima facie evidence. If respondent No.3 has refused to receive the petitioner’s application, the latter is expected to send the same through post or at least, issue a notice to respondent No.3 calling upon him to receive the application. As the petitioner has failed to follow this procedure, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this stage.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.50847 of 2015 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand dismissed as infructuous.
_________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
04th December, 2015 GHN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to entertain a writ petition filed on the uncorroborated claim of refusal without sending the application via post or issuing a notice.
Whether the petitioner must follow specific procedural steps before seeking judicial intervention for allegedly arbitrary refusal of application.
Syed Khaleel
The State of Telangana
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
