Allowed

Valadri Anji Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Jan 2022WP/3204/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226, the High Court set aside an order revoking building permission granted to the petitioner under the TS-bPASS Act, 2020. The court held that the revocation was illegal as the authorities failed to issue a notice of shortfall or opportunity to explain before rejecting the application, in violation of Section 7(8) of the Act and principles of natural justice

What did the court decide?

The revocation order dated 02.07.2021 is set aside. Respondents are directed to follow guidelines in W.P. No. 20398 of 2021 to process the application promptly.

Valadri Anji Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COU.RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Speciat Originat .lurisJictioln]'-" "^,'^

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWo THOUSAND AND^.I.WEN;i I,Vvo ^,'"-

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶5

WR|T^pETtTtON NO: 3204 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Valadri Anli Reddv. S/o Raji Reddy, Aged about 35 years, occ. Business, R/o prot No 14, Stddipet Roia, ftreriar virLs;;;;il;;;f"'sioii.p"t District, (Waransal District)

¶8

AND ...PET|T|oNER

¶9

1 The state-of rerangana, Rep by its principar secretary, Ivrunicipar Administration

¶10

^^{3ld ! !D Department, Department,Secreiarijt, riyOeraUat.---'}

¶11

^^{3ld ! !D Department, Department,Secreiarijt, riyOeraUat.---'} 2 The cheriar l,/runiciparity. Rep by its'cor.lssioner, At cheriar siddipet District

¶12

3 The Executive Engineei rrrrgation ,.0 ceoo- iirigation oivision wai*n.i' "'

¶13

4 The Deputy Executive. Engin-eer. r ano ceoo tirig-ation sub-Division c[Jrlar nt C heriat Sidd ipet District

¶14

5, ...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Arricre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue an order or orders more particularry one in the nature of Writ of IVandamus to declare the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent vide Lr'No.49394/cHER/0060/2021 dated o2tozl2o21 in revoking the buildtng permission granted to the petitionet dated 241061202'l without issuing any notice and oppo(unity and without verification of the records from the irrigation and cAD department solely on the ground erroneous conclusion that the plot of the petitioner falls in the FTL of cherial and park area as illegal, arbitrary, void, abinitio and contrary to the provisions of the lrrlunicipal Act besides violation of Article i4, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of lnd ia.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

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 proceedings in 1r.No 49394/ CHER/ 006012021 dated O2tO7 t202'1 passed by the 2nd respondent by directing him to allow the petitioner to continue the construction pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. S CHALAPATHI RAO

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV (TG)

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : Sri N PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 TO 4: GP FOR IRRIGATION AND CAD

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT..IUSTICEP. MADHAVIDEVI}

¶24

WRIT PETITION^{NO.32O4 OF 2022}

¶25

ORDER

¶26

'Ihis Writ Petition has been filed under Article^{226 of the} Constitution^{of lndia seekingWrit of Mandarnusdeclaring the action} of respondent No.2^{in passingthe revocationol permissionorders in} Letter No.49394iCHERl006^{Ol 202l. dt.Oz,O1 .2021 for constructionof} residential house^ground floor^{-]- 1 upper floor in Plot No'l4} admeasuring 149.99 sq.^yds., or^{125.41 sq. mtrs., situatedin} Sy.No.203lD, 203/R, 203/Q^{and 203/S of Cherial Villageand Mandal,} Siddipet District as illegal, arbitrary and^{violative of Articles14, 2 I} and 3004. of the Constitution ol' lndia and also^violative of^the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.

¶27

2, Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner had made an application for construction of residential house ground floor * I upper floor in his PIot No.14 admeasuring i49.99 sq. yds., or 125.4 I sq. rntrs.. situated in Sy.No.203/D,203/R, 203/Q anct 203iS oi'Cherial Villagc and iVlandal. Siddipet District. Respondent No.2, a1ler being satisfied about lhe prima.facie title over his plot of land, was pleased to grant pelrrission in his lavour through permission No.49394/CHEN0060l202l dt.24.06.2021 after collecting the required permission charges fi'om him. Thereafter, vide

¶28

W. P.No.3204 ot2022

¶29

¶30

proceedings No.49394lCFIER/0060t2021 dt.02.07.2021, the permission granted to the petitioner was revoked without any notice to the petitioner. In the order dt.OZ.O7.2O2l, the remarks for re.iection of the application are mentioned as follows:

¶31

a As per the recommenclotions oJ' the s ite, tech and title fficers, the proposal is not recotllmenclecl

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to l.epresent belore revocation of the permission already granted to him.

¶33

Leamecl counsel lbr respondent No.2 u,as heard

¶34

l-earned Covernrlent Pleader lor Municipal Administration and

¶35

Urban Developmerlt subrnitted that the petitioner had applied through TS-bPASS as per the Telangana State Building Perrnission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-bPASS) Act,2020. The^petitioner was granted instant approval on submitting the application and^after verification of the application, building^{permission shall be sanctioned} to the petitioner within a^period of^{21 days and if it is not so} sanctioned, then it shall be^{considered as deemedapproval}

¶36

Upon hearing the learned^{counsel for the petitioner, Sri S} Chalapathi Rao, the^{learned GovernmentPleader for Municipal} Administration and^{UrbanDevelopment appearing for respondent} No.1 and tl.re learned Standing^{Counselfor respondent No 2, it is} observed tl.rat Section^{7 olthe TS-bPASSAct prescribes the procedure}

¶37

W.P.No.3204^{of 2022}

¶38

¶39

¶40

for obtaining^{building permissions and as per Sub-Section(8) thereof'} the applicant^{has to submit an online application along with requisite} documents^{as may be prescribedand such documentsupon} submission^{shall be examined by the Single Window Committeeset} up for^{this purpose and shofifallsor incompletenessor caseswhere} further^{informationor clarification is needed shall be communicated} ro the applicant^{within10 daysfrom the date of applying' in such} manner, as^{may be prescribed'fherefore'it is noticed that before} revoking^{the permission, the autholities are required to give a notice} of shortfall^{or incompleteness or clarificationto the applicant and after} considering^{the explanationof the applicantonly' a final decision of} sanctioning or^{revocationcan be taken'In the present case' it is clear} that the respondents^{have not followed the procedure as laid down} under Sub-Section^{(8) of Section7 of the TS-bPASSAct',2020'}

¶41

This FIon'ble Counⁱⁿ W.P.No.20398 ol 2021^{and batch} dt.13.12.2021 has considered^{this issueat lengthand at paras 12 and} 13 has directed as under':

¶42

" I2. In view of the above' this Court is of^{the opinion lhat} in ordel lo^{justiJythe action takenby the respondenlrtuthorities in} revoking the building^{permissionsof the petitioners,they ought to} have acted fairly and in^{strict atlherence to the principlesof} natural^justice. However, since^{lhe learned Specful(iovernment} Pleatler, on inslruclions, sttbmitled^{that thc impugnedrcvocalion} Letters passed against^{the petitionertstancl withdravvn lo lheextenl} o/ ret,ocatir.tn of^perrnis.sion to^{.'onslruLl buildings'the said} \qgbmlsslor ts pLaced on record. The impttgned revocation letters passet) by lhe respondent authorities^{against lhe petitionersstand}

¶43

W.P.No.i20zl of 2022 \ \

¶44

¶45

withdrawtl to tha extent ol ret,ocation o./.permis.,ion to construct buildings, in tarnt.s of s ul.tm i.t.s ion-t mctde by the learned Special Cctt,ernme Plcotler^'!'ha /)etilione\ ure dircr/ez;l to.tztbnzil lheir_ \iPlanotiotl.\ to the ob.jecti,tn.t trtrtirrreL) out in the impugned reyocation letters to the responclent authorities within a period of nuo Q) weeks .fi.om today. On such submission of explanations by the petitioners, lhe resporulent aurhorities are entitled n pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the provisions ofTS_b1ASS Act and the Rules made thereunder, within a period of one (l) week from^{the date} of receipt of such explanations. In case, if no orders are passed by the respondent aulhorities within the time indicated abow, there .shall be deentecl upproval oJ the application.s oJ.rhe petitioners .filed .for consrruclion ofbuirdings. Ir i.s made clear thar until passing of orders by rhe respondent duthorities within the time prescribed on lhe explanotion.s submi ed by the petitioners, lhe petitioners sholl not proceecl u)ith any type of consftuctions in their respective subject lands.

¶46

As regards the contention of the learned counsel.for the petitioner in Il/.P.No.32665 of 2021 that the revocation orcler was pasSed ttithoul recording an1, obiections, the respondenl authorities are directed to bring the ohjections to the notice o_[ the pelitioner /herein within a period of one (1) weekfrom toddy: and on receipt of such objections, the petitioner shall submit his explanation to the soid objectir;ns within nvo (2) weeks thereafter; and on submission of such explanation by the petitioner, the responalent authorities are entitled to pass appropriate orders in accordance. with the provisions of TS-bPASS Act and the rules made thereunder, within one (l) weekfrom the date of receipt of such explanation. In case, if no orders are passed by the respondenl authorilies vtithin the time indicated above, there shall be deemed approral of the opplication of the petitioner filed.for construclion of building. tt is made clear lhal until^{passing of} orders b1, the rcsy;ontlenl aulhoritie.: vilhin^{the lime prescribed on} the explanotio]1..subntiltetl by lhc pctitioner.^{thepclilioner} 'shall^not proceed wilh on): lype of con.eh'L!cLion.\ in hi.s sublec/ land.^"

¶47

W,P.No,3204^{of 2022}

¶48

¶49

lt iI

¶50

',.. In view of the^{above, the revocation order dt'02'07'2021is set} aside and the^{respondents are therefore directedto follow the} guidelines or the^{directionsissued by this Court in W P No'20398of} 202|andbatchdt.|3.|2.2021andprocesstheapplicationofthe petitioner d1.24.06.2021^{and passorders accordinglyin accordance} with law.

¶51