Allowed

Padmavati v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Sept 2017WP/30695/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition challenging a caution notice issued under Section 459 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act for allegedly dilapidated constructions. The court held that the notice was issued in violation of natural justice as the authority did not consider the explanation submitted by the petitioners earlier in 2016. The notice was quashed, and the matter wa

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned caution notice dated 29.08.2017 and remand the matter to the respondent Corporation authorities for fresh consideration, hearing the petitioners, and without taking any coercive

Padmavati Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.30695 of 2017

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Chatla Madhu, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation.

¶4

A caution notice vide proceedings No.234/235/TPS/C18/NZ/GHM/2016, dated 29.08.2017, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.18, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶5

Earlier, the respondent Municipal Corporation has issued a notice under Section 459 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), asking to show cause as to why the subject constructions should not be pulled down/removed/repaired.

¶6

According to the petitioners, they submitted an explanation on 21.08.2016. Now, by way of the impugned caution notice, dated 29.08.2017, the respondent Municipal Corporation requested the petitioners to vacate/remove the subject building.

¶7

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned action is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioners submitted an explanation earlier on 21.08.2016, but the respondent Corporation, without considering the

¶8

¶9

same, straight away issued the impugned caution notice and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶10

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing counsel that as the subject building is in dilapidated condition, the respondent Corporation issued the impugned caution notice, as such, the same cannot be faulted.

¶11

It is not in dispute that earlier the respondent Corporation issued a notice under Section 459 of the Act on 06.08.2016, calling for explanation from the petitioners and in response thereto, on 21.08.2016, the petitioners said to have been submitted an explanation. The impugned caution notice does not show any semblance of consideration of the said explanation offered by the petitioners. On this sole ground this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned caution notice and to remand the matter to the respondent Corporation authorities for fresh consideration.

¶12

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned caution notice, dated 29.08.2017, and the matter is remanded to the respondent Corporation authorities for fresh consideration of the issue by considering the explanation, dated 21.08.2016, said to have been submitted by the petitioners and after hearing the petitioners. Till the said exercise attains finality, no coercive action shall be taken. However, it is made clear that if any unforeseen eventuality takes place, the petitioners alone shall be held

¶13

¶14

responsible, but not the Corporation authorities. No order as to costs.

¶15

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

____________________ A.V. SESHA SAI, J

¶17

Date: 12.09.2017 ES

Padmavati v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmavati v. The State of Telangana

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

M/s. Renuka Restaurant and Bar, Vs The State of Telangana

Neeli Lakshmi Pathi, Vs .The State of Andhra Pradesh

R.Buchi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

C.K.Nizamuddeen, S/oMossa, Vs Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

V.Bala Manohar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Venkat Reddy S/o. Yadagiri Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana