Partly allowed

K. Rama Venkateswara Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary

Telangana HC23 Jun 2016WP/20142/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Gram Panchayat notice cancelling a prior NOC for a construction plant. The High Court set aside the cancellation as show-cause only, directed the authority to hear objections, and ordered status-quo.

What did the court decide?

Order cancelling NOC set aside; authority directed to hear petitioner and pass orders; status-quo for 8 weeks.

K. Rama Venkateswara Reddy, Vs The State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20142 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for 1^st respondent, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for 2^nd respondent and Sri G.Seshadri, Standing Counsel for 3^rd respondent.

¶5

The petitioner challenges notice in Rc.No.22/2016, dated 13-

¶6

06-2016. The notice reads as follows:-

¶7

“Ref:- 1. As per the proceedings Rc B/560/2016,

¶8

dt.06-06-2016 of the Tahsildar,

¶9

Banaganapalle.

¶10

2. Note dt.06-06-2016 of the Mandal

¶11

Surveyor, Banganapalle. 3.Application of Sri T.Venkateswarlu, Banumukkala village.

¶12

¶13

The Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Construction requested for NOC for running Batch Mix and Hot Drum Plant 100 HPEM in Sy.No.167/1, Banumukkala area, Banaganapalle Grampanchayat, Kurnool District, therefore, we have given NOC on 27-05-2016 according to your Encumbrance Certificate stating that there is 40 feet road.

¶14

As per the reference 1 and 2 of the Tahsildar, Banaganapalle, as per Certificate under NOC given by the Tahsildar there is no Rastha in Sy.Nos.248, 249, 317, 266 and 267.

¶15

Sri T.Venkateswarlu, resident of Banumukkala village, is requested to cancel the NOC granted earlier stating that there is 40 feet approach road.

¶16

Therefore, as per the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, there is no 40 feet approach road in Sy.Nos.248, 249, 317, 266 and 267, hence, the NOC granted by this Grampanchayat on 27-05-2016 is hereby cancelled. In this

¶17

regard, if there are any objections, submit the same to this office within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice.”

¶18

The petitioner applied for grant of NOC by the Gram Panchayat, Banaganapalle. On 27-05-2016, basing upon the resolution of Gram Panchayat, dated 19-05-2016 the 3^rd respondent granted NOC to run ‘Batch Mix and Hot Mix Dram Plant’ to the petitioner.

¶19

The grievance of petitioner is that the Resolution passed on 19-05-2016 is in force as on date. The Executive Officer through the impugned notice cannot and could not have cancelled the NOC dated 27-05-2016. The operative portion of notice is exacted above. Prima facie, it appears that cancelling the NOC while intending to issue notice, receive explanation from the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, is arbitrary and illegal.

¶20

Hence, I am satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of by this order.

¶21

The order cancelling NOC dated 27-05-2016 through the impugned notice is set aside. The 3^rd respondent is directed to treat the notice dated 13-06-2016 as a show-cause notice, receive explanation from petitioner, consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioner is given liberty to represent within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶22

The parties are directed to maintain status-quo as regards structure and possession of ‘Batch Mix and Hot Mix Drum Plant’ for a period of eight weeks from today.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as indicated

¶24

above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition

¶26

shall stand closed.

¶27

_____________ S. V. BHATT, J

¶28

Dt: 23-06-2016 Prv

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.20142 of 2016

¶31

23-06-2016

¶32

Prv

K. Rama Venkateswara Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Rama Venkateswara Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guduru Ravi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. M. Rajali Vs State of Telangana

Mysore Structurals Private Limited Vs -

Penki Krishna Mohan Vs The Revenue Divisional officer, Kakinada

Coromandel International Limited, Vs A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission

International Paper Appm Limited Vs A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission