Disposed

Kadiyala Babu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Apr 2019WP/6038/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed against a municipal corporation for issuing an impugned notice initiating action under Section 452(2) of the GHMC Act without considering the petitioner's submitted reply to a prior Show Cause notice, seeking judicial intervention to prevent immediate coercive steps and compel consideration of the reply.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd Respondent to consider the petitioner's reply and pass appropriate orders within three weeks, prohibiting coercive steps until then.

Kadiyala Babu Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTI CE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON No.6038 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner submitted an application to the 2^nd respondent on 24.11.2018 requesting to grant permission for constructing a house in plot No.61, Survey No.216 to 222 & 298, situated at Cherlapally, Kapra. As no orders were passed on his application, the petitioner, after waiting for the statutory period as mandated under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Act, 1955, in anticipation of permission from the authorities, constructed a wall to protect the construction material lying in the open premises. While so, the 2^nd respondent issued a Show Cause notice under Section 452(1) and 461(1) of the GHMC Act, seeking explanation from the petitioner as to why the unauthorised construction should not be pulled down. The petitioner asserts that she submitted her explanation on 18.03.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was surprised to receive the impugned notice dated 14.03.2019 issued under Section 452(2) of the GHMC Act, 1955, stating that as the petitioner has not replied to the Show Cause notice dated 25.02.2019, further action as per Section 636 of the GHMC Act, would be initiated. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶5

Heard Sri Vijay Ashrit, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Sampath Prabhakar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a reply dated 18.03.2019 to the Show Cause notice dated 25.02.2019 stating that he had in fact submitted an application on 24.11.2018 seeking permission for building construction and also paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- which was acknowledged vide File No.3/C1/22334/2018, however, as he had not received any reply even after lapse of three months statutory period, he proceeded

¶7

wp_6038_2019 CKR, J

¶8

¶9

with the construction, and that too, he constructed a wall to safeguard his construction material lying in the open plot. It is also stated that the petitioner had not been intimated what deviations the petitioner has committed. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have not considered the reply submitted by the petitioner on 18.03.2019 against the earlier notice dated 25.02.2019, and therefore the impugned notice dated 14.03.2019 issued without considering the reply is arbitrary and unsustainable.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the respondents may be directed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

¶11

Having regard to the respective submissions, as the petitioner is said to have submitted her explanation on 18.03.2019 though belatedly, in response to the show cause notice dated 25.02.2019, before taking any action subsequent to the impugned notice dated 14.03.2019 issued under Section 452(2) of the GHMC Act, the 2^nd respondent shall consider the reply and pass appropriate orders on the application dated 24.11.2018 submitted by the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time the 2^nd respondent considers the reply of the petitioner, no coercive steps shall be taken against him. Likewise, the petitioner shall also not make any further construction without obtaining permission as required under Municipal laws.

¶12

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶13

______________________________ JUSTI CE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶14

03^rd April, 2019 KSM

¶15

wp_6038_2019 CKR, J

¶16

¶17

THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTI CE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶18

WRI T PETI TI ON No.6038 of 2019

¶19

03^rd April, 2019

¶20

KSM

Kadiyala Babu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadiyala Babu 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

K.Madhavachari Vs The State of Telangana

Tenneti Venkata Satya Prasad, Vs The State Of Telangana

Smt. Muppidi Vidyadhari Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Sri Veerabhadra Granites Vs The Director of Mines and Geology

M/s. Sri Veerabhadra Granites Vs The Director of Mines and Geology

Anand Raj Singh Vs State of Telangana