Disposed

Subba Rao v. Prl.Secy., Ma., Andud Dept., Hyd., and 4 Others

Telangana HC11 Jul 2018WP/34944/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court treated the impugned final notice as a show cause notice, set aside its rejection of the earlier explanation, and directed the respondent authority to reconsider the matter within eight weeks. The petitioner was ordered to submit an explanation within three weeks while maintaining the status quo.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice treated as a show cause notice; rejection of prior explanation set aside; petitioner directed to submit explanation within three weeks; respondent to dispose within eight weeks; status

Subba Rao Vs Prl.Secy., Ma., Andud Dept., Hyd., and 4… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

Writ Petition No.34944 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing final notice, dated 14.10.2016, under Section 636(2) of Hyderabad Corporation Act, 1955, [‘the Act’, for short] and his action in attempting to demolish the petitioner’s subject property on the ground that it is in violation of Municipal Rules despite the fact that he paid penalty in a sum of Rs.50,000/for 2^nd floor vide challan, dated, 19.03.2016; and, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for 3^rd floor vide challan, dated 16.06.2016, for regularisation, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Articles of the Constitution of India.

¶5

Though learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 are in agreement that in matters of similar nature, this Court is directing the parties to treat the impugned notice as a show cause notice and permitting the petitioner to submit an explanation, it is a matter of record that the petitioner’s explanation earlier submitted to the notice under Section 452 of the Act was already rejected. Be that as it may.

¶6

Having regard to the submissions & the facts and circumstances of the case, the rejection proceeding, if any, is hereby set aside; and, the petitioner is directed to submit, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, an explanation to the impugned final notice, by treating it as a show cause notice. Further, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the same, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of such explanation from the petitioner, however, in strict accordance with the procedure established by

¶7

¶8

law, and communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioner within a week thereafter. It is made clear that till a considered decision, as directed now, is taken by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner shall not proceed with further constructions and shall maintain absolute status quo. It is also made clear that if the subject constructions made by the petitioner are within the parameters of the building regulations, the orders issued by the Government for regularisation of the building may also be considered for confirmation by the 2^nd respondent while passing appropriate orders.

¶9

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶11

_________________________
M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J
11.07.2018
Vjl

Subba Rao v. Prl.Secy., Ma., Andud Dept., Hyd., and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subba Rao v. Prl.Secy., Ma., Andud Dept., Hyd., and 4 Others

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

P. Vijaya Laxmi Vs State of Telangana

Gadamsetty Veeranjeneyulu Vs Pokuru Ramaiah

Authorized Rep., M/S. Gsk Infrastructes, Secbad and Another Vs Spl. Chief Secretary, Municipal Admin., Hyd and 4 Others

Maram Nagi Reddy Vs K Srinivas Reddy

Rednam Seshagiri Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Sushma Vs Sri v.C.Sajjanar IPS