Allowed

Joginapally Shilpa v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Jan 2022WP/1890/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a writ petition challenging the arbitrary revocation of building permission without notice. The court held that authorities failed to follow the TS-bPASS Act procedure. It set aside the revocation order (limited to the extent of revocation) and directed respondents to process the application following Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The revocation order dated 09.12.2021 is set aside. Authorities directed to process the application and pass orders in accordance with the TS-bPASS Act and Supreme Court guidelines within specified ti

Joginapally Shilpa Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI^DEVI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1890 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Joginapally Shilpa, W/o. Venkateshwara^{Rao, Age- 41 Years, Occ- Housewife,} R/o. Flat.No. 302, Pavani Residency, Pet^{Basheerabad,Near HDFCBank,} Jeedimetla, Qutbullapur, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

..,PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, represented by its^{Principal Secretary to thelvlunicipal} Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings,^Hyderabad.

¶11

The Metpally tvlunicipality, represented by^{its Commissioner, Metpally Proper and} Mandal, Jagtial District.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances staled in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the HighCourt maybe pleased} to iSSue an order or direction more^{particularlyone in the nature of writ of mandamus} or any other appropriate writ declaring^{the action of the respondentNo. 2, in passing} the revocation of^permission orders^{in LetterNo. 109146/METP/O41412021,dated.} Ogl12t2o21, for construction of residential^{house Ground Floorin plot of land of the} petitioner admeasuring 231.86 Sq.Yds equal to 193.86 Sq.Mtrs,^{in Sy.No. 12101} 4 situated at Metpally Croper and^{Mandal of Jagtial District,is nothing but arbitraff} illegal, null and void and violative of^{principlesof natural justice and also violativeof} Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution^{of lndia and also violative of the provisions} of the Telangana Municipalities^Act,2019.

¶14

A NO:1 OF 202

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to} suspend the revocation orders^passed by^{the respondentNo.2, in Letter} 109146/METP/041412021 , dated.0911212021,^{thereby direct the respondent No.2,} not to interfere in any manner in construction of^{the residentialbuilding in} accordance with the sanctioned^{plan, by the petitioner in her plot of land} admeasuring 231.86 Sq.Yds equal^{to 193.86 Sq.Mtrs, in Sy.No. 12101s&' situatedat} Metpally Proper and Mandal of Jagtial^District.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl.^K.VENUMADHAV

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1:^{GP FOR MCPLADMN URBAN DEV}

¶18

N, Counsel for the Respondent No.2:SRI.PRAVEEN^{KUMAR(SC FOR GHMC)}

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

( t'

¶21

THE HON( UIIABLE SMI".IUSTICE P. MADITA'I DEVI

¶22

\4 RrI PE',r'lTtO\ NO.l890 0F 2022

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Writ Petition has been t-rled ur-rder Article 216 of the Constitution of Ir dia seeking Writ 01'Mandamus declaring the action of respondent N< .2 in passing thc levocirtion ol'permission orders in l.etter No. I 09 I 4( /M[rl'P/0,i i.+,20] I dt.09. i 2.102 I tbr constnrction of' residential hous< ground lloor in a plot of land of the petitioner admeasuring 23 1.86 sq. yds., equal to 193.86 sq. nrtrs.. in Sy.No. 1210/E si .uated at Metpally proper and Mandal of Jagtial District, as illega., arbitrary and violative of Arlicles 14, l9 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of the provisions of the Telangana Muni, ipalities Act. l0l^t)

¶25

2, Brief lacts leading to the filing ol this Writ Petition are that the petitioner had rrade an application tbr construction of residential house in her plot of land admeasuring 23 1.86 sc1. yds., eqr.ral to 193.86 sq. mtrs., in Sy.)lo. 1210/E situated at lvletpall), proper rnd Mandal o1' Jagtial District. I -espondent No.2, atter being satisfied about the prima facie^{title over h :r plot ot' land, was pleasedto grant permissionin her} favour throt gh permission No. l09l46IMETP,'041412021 dt.03.12,2021 a ter collecting the required pelmission charges tiom her, i.e., an ar rount of Rs.821,958,/-. Thereafter, vide proceedings

W.P.No.1890 of2022

)

No.l09l46/METPl04l4l202t dt.09. 12.2021, the permission granted to the petitioner was levoked without any notice to the petitioner. In the order dt.09. 12.202 l, the remarks lor rejection of the application are mentioned as follows:

¶30

The proposals are not in accordance to the Telangana Building Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.168, dt.07.04.2012 and its amendments.

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to represent before revocation of the permission already granted to her.

¶32

Learned counsel for respoudent No.2 was heard.

¶33

Learned Government Pleader lor Municipal Administration and Urban Developrnent submitted that the peritioner had applied through TS-bPASS as per the Telangana Srale Building Permission Approval and Self Cerrillcation Systerr (TS-bPASS) Act. 2020. I'he petitioner was granted instant atrrproval on subrnitting the application and after verification of.the application, building permission shall be sanctioned to the petitioner within a period of 2 I days and if it is not so sanctioned, then it shall be considered as deemed approval.

¶34

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Venumadhav, the leamed Government Pleader for Municipal Adrninistration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.l and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, it is

w,P.No I890 o12022

'1/

observed that Sec ion 7 ofthe TS-bPASS Act prescribes the procedure for obtaining buil ling permissions and as per Sub-Section (g) thereof, the applicant has ,o submit an online application along with reqr-risite documents as r lay be prescribed and such clocuments upon submission shall re examined by the Single Window Comrnittee set up for this pLlrpo ie and shorlf'alls or. inconrpleteness or cases where further informati< n or clarification is needed shall be comrnunicated to the applicant vithin l0 days frorn the date of applying, in such manner, as may be prescribed. Therefore, it is noticed that befbre revoking the perrrission, the ar.rthorities are required to give a notice of shortfall or inc,rmpleteness or clarification to the applicant and alter considering the e rplanation of the applicant only, a final decision of sanctioning or re\ ocation can be taken. In the present case, it is clear that the responde nts have not followed the procedure as laid down under Sub-Sectior l (8) of Section 7 of the TS-bpASS Act. 2020.

¶40

This Ilon'rle Crrurr llt W.P.\o.20398 ol 202 I and batch dr.l3.1?.2021 ha: considered this issr.re at lengrh and at paras l2 and l3 has directed as under:

¶41

"12. n view of'the ubove, this Cour.t is ol the opinktn thot in order to jt stiJy the uction tuken b1, the resporulcnt .luthoritics in revoking the building permissions ol the peritioner,r, they ought to have acted -airly and in stict adherence to the principle: oJ nalural justi, e. However, since the learned Special Government Pleader, on nstruction.. .suhmittetl thot thc impul1ned reyocotion lellers passet ugainst thc petitit.tners. .t.tartd y,ilhdrautn to the extent of revocatio t of permission to construct builclings, the .yaicl

w.P.No.1890 of 2022

-l

suhmission i.s^pltcccl on^{recortl.Tha impugnedrevocalion lelters} passed by the rcspontlenl uutlrrities^{aguitls! lhc} Pelilioners^stand v,ithdrau;n to lhe exlcnl^{ttf revocolionqf permissionlo construcl} built)ings, in lernls^{rtf suhmissions madehy thelearnedSpecial} Government Pleader.^{The pelitioners are directedto submit their} explanations lo^{theohiccli()ns pointed out in lhe impugned} revocalion lcller.s lo^{Ihe respondenlaulhoritieswithina periodof} rwo 0) tt'eekt.li'on^{lodq. On such sttbmissiono.f explanations by} lhe pelitioners, lhe^{rcspondcnlaulhorilicsare entitled to pass} appropriale^{ortlers. in accordcrnceu'ilh the provision'r o/ IS-bP'4SS} Act anti the^{Rules nrucle lhereunder'vithina periodof one( l) week} .fi'om^{the date oJ'receipt ttf such explanationsln case,if no orders} .re passed by^{the respondentauthoritieswithin the time indicated} above, there shall^{be deemedapproval of the applicationsof the} pefirioners frled for construction^{of buildings'It is madeclear that} until passing of orders^{by the respondentauthorities withinthe} time^{prescribedon the explanations submitted by the petitioners'} lhe pelilioners shall^{not proceedwithany typeof constructions in} their respective^{subiectlands.}

¶46

As regurds^{the conlenlion of lhe learnedcounsel lbr the} pelitioner in W.l'.No.32665^{of 2021thut lhe revocdlionorder was} passed \Nilhout recorcling^{onyobjeclions, lherespondent} authorities are^{dir-ectetlto bring the obiectionsto the notice of the} pelitiotler thcrcin t|ithitt^{a period tf one (t) vieek.fromtoday; and} on receipt of such^{obiecrions,Ihe petitionershall submit his} explanation lo^{thesdid objectionsv'ithintuvo (2) weeksthereafler;} and on. submission^{o/ such explanation by the petitioner'the} respondent atdhorities^{are enlitled to pass appropriateorders in} accordance^{\l)ilh lhe prot'isionsof TS-bPASSAct and therules} made thereuntler',^{wirhin one (11 t'eek} -li'om^{the dute of receiptof} such explanatiott.^{lncttse ifno orders are passed by the} respondenl^{(tttlhoritiestt'ithin rhe lime indicated obove' there rhall} be deemed approval^{of the application of the petitionerfled for} construction of building.^{It is madeclear that until passing of} orders by the^{respondentduthoritieswithin thetimeprescribedon} the explcmations^{submiuedby the petttioner,the petitioner shall not} proceed with any lype^{o.[ conslruclions in his subjectland "}

W.P.No 1890 of 2022

In view of the above, the revocarion order dt.09.12.2021 is set aside and the r:spondenls are tltere{br!. directecl to tbllorv the guidelines or the Cirections issued by this Court in W.p.No.20398 ol 2021 and batch dt. 13.12.2021 and process the application ol the petitioner dt.03.l )-.2021 and pass orders accordingly in accordance with law.

¶51