Disposed

Sri Thota Devender Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Jun 2021WP/13036/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a notice for pulling down unauthorized structures filed without a prior show cause. The Court treated the impugned notice as a show cause notice and directed authorities to consider the petitioner's explanation with an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice shall be treated as a show cause notice; petitioner to submit explanation within two weeks; authorities to pass orders within four weeks; no coercive steps pending.

Sri Thota Devender Reddy, Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 13036 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Thota D_eyqn{gr Reddy, S/o. T. Krishna Reddy, Age 44 yearc, Occu. Business, R/o-H.No.1-5-1 11811114, Near ^St. Pauls School, Otd nlwat,^'Bollaram, Tirumalagiri, Hyderabad-50001 0, Telangana State

¶8

...PET|T|ONER

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Ir/unicipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyd era bad

¶11

The Greater Hyderabad [Vunicipal Corporation, Rep. by Commissioner, BRKR

¶12

Bhawan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. Telangana State.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Circle 27, GHtr/C, Alwal, Secunderabad, Telangana

¶14

Town Planning Officer, Circle 27, GHMC, Alwal, Secunderabad, Telanganal

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of IVANDAMUS under article 226 of Constitution of lndia challenging the action of Respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned Notice No.50/UC/133/TPS/C27|KPZ|GHMC|2121 , d1.O110612021 asking the Petitioner to raize-down/pult down the unauthorized structure within a week days as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, violative of Article-3O0 A of Constitution of lndia and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the impugned notice, dt.01/0612021 in the interest of justice

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned notice/order No. 50 / UC / 133 ITPS lC-27 IKPZI 3HMC 12021, dt. 0110612021 pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : DT.VENKAT REDDY DONTHI REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI CHATLA MADHU

¶22

S.C. FOR G.H.M.C.

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.^{13O36 of2O21}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the^{petitioner, the learned} Government Pleader for^{Municipal Administration and Urban} Development for respondent No. I^{and the learnedStanding} Counsel tor respondent Nos.2^{to 4. With their consent,the Writ} Petition is disposed of^{at the stage of admission itself.}

¶29

This writ petition is frled by the^{petitioner challenging the} action of the respondent No. 3 in^{issuing notice dated 01.06.2021} asking the^petitioner to^pull down the^{structures/shed over the} property in Sy. No. 580 at Aiwal Village and^{Municipality,} (lhatkesar Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary on the ground that the same has been issued without following^{the procedureand without} serving any prior show cause notice.

¶30

The learned counsel for the^petitioner states that^without issuing any show cause notice or^{affording an opportunityof} hearing, respondent No. 3 has straightaway^{issuedthe impugned} proceedings, and therefore, prays to set aside^{the same.}

¶31

Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions,^{states thatthe} petitioner may be directed to submit his explanation to^the irnpugned notice treating it as a^{show cause notice and the said} explanation will be considered by the^{authorities in accordance} with law.

¶32

In view of the fact that the impugned notice^{has been issued} r,t'ilhout putting the petitioner on notice and calling^{for his} explanation, the impugned notice shall^{be treated as a shol,r'cause}

¶33

¶34

notice and the petitioner shall submit his explanation to the same within a period of two weeks from today, On receipt ol such explanation, the respondent No.3 shall consider the same and pass necessary orders on merits, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is needless to mention that before passing any orders, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing. A copy of the order that may be passed by respondent No.3 shall be communicated to the petitioner. Till such time the final orders are passed, the official respondents are directed not take any coercive steps against the petitioner. The petitioner is also directed not to make any further constructions till the orders are passed by the respondents.

¶35

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶37

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

SD/.T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// r4)

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Secretary,^{It4unicipalAdministration and Urban Development} Department, State of Telangana,^{Governmentof Telangana,Secretariat,} Hyderabad 2. i6e Commlssioner, Greater^{Hyderabad1VunicipalCorporation, BRKR Bhawan'} Tank Bund, Hyderabad.^{TelanganaSta.te,.} . - 3. f f'." Giiriv C'ommissioner,^Ciicle27 ,^{GHlr,4C,Alw-al, Secunderabad, Telangana'} 4. rnn Fianirino Off icer.. Ciicle²⁷ ,^{GHlr/C, Alwal, Secunderabad, Telangana'} 5. one CClo Dr."Ventat Reddv^{Donthi Reddy,AdvocateIOPUCI} 6. i" CC. tJCp ior^{ititunicipltl"O.ristriti6h,"4 Urban Deveiopment,HighCourt} for the State of Telangana^{at Hyderabad} t9-UI]-. .^ 7. One CC to Sri Chatla-Madhu,^{SC for GHII/C (OPUC)}

¶43

Two CD Copies o One Spare^CoPY Kj

¶44

HIGH COURT

¶45

DATED:1710612021

¶46

6 STAI€
1
(
C() 2 I JUt{?021 .}'o

Dr.-- P.1.IC

¶47

ORDER

¶48

WP.No.13036 ot 2021

¶49

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶50

¶51

n
<br>

Sri Thota Devender Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Thota Devender Reddy, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pallapu sanjiv Vs The State of Telangana

Abdul Hameed Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Mande Lalitha Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

G. v. v.Rajendra Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. G.K.R.S. Properties LLP Vs The State of Telangana

Manne Mallishwari Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited