Allowed

KandukuruBhadraiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Jun 2021WP/12554/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed against a final notice issued by the 3rd Respondent (Bhongir Municipal Council) without reasons. The court held that the notice was illegal and against natural justice as it did not address the petitioner's explanation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned final notice dated 23.02.2021 set aside and matter remanded to the respondent to pass fresh orders with valid reasons on merits after affording opportunity of hearing.

KandukuruBhadraiah Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 12554 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

KandukuruBhad raiah, S/o. K. Mallaiah, Aged 49 years, Occ.Government employee, R/o H.No. 1-3-17711 , Vidya Nagar, Bhongir Town and mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, rep by Principal Secretary^(Municipal Administration) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep by its Chairman,^Tarnaka, Hyderabad

¶12

Bhongir Municipal Council, Rep by its Commissioner,^{Bhongir, Nalgonda District}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the HighCourt may be pleased to} pass an order or direction or writ, in the nature of I,4andamus duly declaring^{the notice} of the 3rd respondent herein vide^{No. 2223ITPS/2020,dated 23.02.2021as illegal,} arbitrary and against the^{principles naturaljustice andconsequently,set aside the} impugned notice vide No. 2223ltJClTPSl2020,^{dated 23.02.2021 in the interest of} justice

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section^'151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleasedto suspend the} impugned notice vide No. 2223lUClTPSl2020,^{dated 23.02.2021 issuedby the 3rd} respondent in the interest of^justice

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^{P RAMASHARANA SHARMA}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^{No 1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMNURBAN DEV}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{No 2: SRI V NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA}

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent^{No 3: SRI N PRAVEEN KUMAR,}

¶21

SC FOR MUNCIPALITIES

¶22

The Court at the stage of admission^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶23

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶24

WRIT PETITIO^{N No. 12534 of 2O2l}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heardthelearnedcounselforthepetitioner'learned Government^{Pleader for Municipal Administrationand Urban} Development^{for respondent No.1, Sri V'Narasimha Goud'learned} Standing Counsel^{for HMDA,for respondentNo'2' and Sri} N.Praveen Kumar,^{learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities'for} respondent No.3.^{With their consent, the Writ Petitionis disposed} of at the stage of^{admission itself.}

¶27

Aggrieved by the^{issuance of the FinalNotice} No.2223lUClfPSl2O2O,^{dated 23.02.2021 by respondent No'3' the} present writ petition^{is filed.}

¶28

A perusal of the^{impugnednoticeshows that the official} respondents, without^{adverting to the explanationsubmitted by the} petitioner, have^passed the^{impugned order simply putting a blank} line where the reason^{has to be givenwith regardto the explanation} submitted by the^{petitioner. The authorities are obligated under} the law to^give consideration^{to the explanation,il any submittedby} the petitioner, before^{passing any adverse ordersand in case they} are not satisfied^{with such explanation, the authorities shallgive} reasons in support^{of their conclusion.}

¶29

This Court as well^{as the Apex Court, on number of} occasions, have held^{that any authority/Court/ quasijudicial} authority have to^{necessarilygive reasoningin the orderpassed by} them. Unless^{reasoningis given in the order, neither the party nor} Courts before,whom^{the order is challengedwill be in a position to} .'" appreciate as^{to what has weighedwith the said authorityeither}

¶30

vv.P. No 12554 of 2021

¶31

for rejecting or accepting the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Though the quasi judicial or administrative authority are not obligated to give a lengthy or elaborate reasoning as in the case of Judicial order, yet they are expected to give a reasoned order which should be precise, concisely setting out the reasons for accepting or rejecting the explanation submitted to the show cause notice.

¶32

In Assistant Commlssloner, Commerclal Tac Department, Works Contrcrct and. Leaslng, Kota as. Shukla and Brothersr, the Hon,ble supreme court has herd as under:

¶33

,,.... while exe the potter of judicial reuiew on adminbtratiue o"r"*rnn of courtsr^"oor'io!i"o-::;:tr:::::;r^;,:::::;:, reasons can neuer be dispensed. with. fhe aoctAne of audi alteram partem has three basic essentra/s. First/y, a person against uthom an ord.er is required to be passed or uthose rights are tkelg to be affected aduerselg must be granted an opportunitg of being heard. Sasvnety, 1l1s authoitA concerned. should prouide a fair and transparent procedure and iastlg, the authority concemed must applg its mind and dbpose of the matter by a reasoned. or speaking ord.er .. ,. .... A litigant who approaches the cour.t with ang gieuance in accordance uith lau b entitled to knout the reasons for grant or reiection of his prager' Reasons are the so of ord.ers. todualinftrmitr"",;r:;:i:::;::::::r;::"r"-r;: affected partA and. : more pafticularlg' hamper the proper ad.mrrr"r)t"ono'o' etion ofjustice' These pinciples are not onlg applicabte or exea)tiue actbns, but theg opptg *it)administratiue sreater desree ", "*X:' :';:otr: r:::::;::: Th.e ord.ers of the cot thecourtingrantins:;:,::,::{,;:i#}.;:,:#:"r;,:;: applicant.,,

¶34

t (2Ot0) 4 SCC 785

¶35

AAR, J W.P. No.12554 of 2021

¶36

¶37

For the afore-stated reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shuklc and brothers (supra), this Court is of the prima facie opinion that ends of^justice would be met if the impugned final notice dated 23.02.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.3 granting Iiberty to pass fresh orders assigning valid and cogent reasons, duly putting the petitioner on notice and affording an opportunity of hearing, strictly on merits. A copy of the order shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶38

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

SD/.K.SAILESHI

¶41

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// L. \l I SECTION OFFICER

¶42

¶43

To,

¶44

The Principal Secretary^(Municipal Administration)^{Secretariat, State of} Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶45

The Chairman, Hyderabad Metropolitan^{Development Authority, Tarnaka,} Hyderabad

¶46

The Commissioner, Bhongir Municipal^{Council, Bhongir, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶47

One CC to SRl. P Rama Sharana Sharma^Advocate IOPUC]

¶48

One CC to SRl. V Narasimha Goud, SC^{for HMDA} IOPUCI

¶49

One CC to SRl. N Praveen Kumar, SC^{for Muncipalities} [OPUC]

¶50

Two CCs to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN^DEV ,High^{Court for the State} of Telangana. [OUT]

¶51

Two CD Copies

¶52

One Spare Copy.

rsn \ "Y

HIGH COURT

DATED:14/06i2021

ORDER

WP.No.12554 ai 2021

-( il e 14:
( o
Co 2 3 JUN 2021
t!'
*
D PAT f?

¶59

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

¶60

WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

KandukuruBhadraiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

KandukuruBhadraiah 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravulapelli Lingareddy Vs The State of Telangana

Abdul Hakeem Vs State of Telangana

L.v.Sai Harshavardan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

K. Chandra Prakash and Another Vs the Dy. Collector and 7 Others

Chinturi Gopala Rao Vs The State of Telangana

B Kista Reddy Vs The Spl. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer