Allowed

P. Venkateshwar Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC16 Mar 2022WP/6668/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inaction of the Principal Secretary regarding a revision appeal filed against a Municipal Council resolution. The Court held that the Section 65 power cannot be delegated to subordinates and directed the Principal Secretary to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Respondent No. 1 directed to dispose of the pending appeal within four weeks.

P. Venkateshwar Reddy Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE A.ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO^{:6668OF 2022}

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

about 52^years,

¶8

1. P. Venkateshwar^{ReddY, S/o Bal} Reddy, aged Occ: Agriculture, R/o^{H.No.7-47,Gand} hi Nagar, Amarachint^{ha, WanaparthY} District-SO9 130.

¶9

2 Dheen Kumar, S/o^{Dheenadayal,Aged 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o New SC} Colony. Amarachintha,^{Wanaparthy District-509 130'}

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{by its Principalsecre^tary,Muncipal Adminstration} anC 0rOJn Develop'ment^{Department, BRKR Secretariat Buildings'} Hyderabad.

¶13

The commissioner^{and Director of MunicipalAdministration, Governmentof} Telangana, AC Guards,^HYderabad.

¶14

3.ThelvlunicipalCouncil,Amarachinthalr'4unicipality,WanaparthyDistrict'rep by its Chair Person.

¶15

4 The Amarachintha^{l,4unicipality, Amarachintha' Wanaparthy District' rep by its} Co mmissioner

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

PetitionunderArticle226olltheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith' the High Court may be} preased to issue^{a writ, order or Direction more particurarry onein the nature of} the Writ^{of lr,4andamus,by declaring the action of the 1st Respondentm not} taking^{any action on my appealdl' 1S '12'2021filed for cancellation of the} Resorution^{No.73, dt. 30.6.2021passed by the Municiparcouncir, Amarachinta} Wanaparthy^{Districtand declarethe ResolutionNo 73' dt 30 '6 '2021 passedby} the Municipar^{councir, Amarachinta as iilegar arbitraryand further direct the} respondents^{to pay the pendingbills as per the M'Books recordedby the} Engineering^{Department as detailed below'}

¶18

1 . M. B.No.B/45 41201 5-201 6for an amount of Rs. I,57, 1 BO/2.M.B.No.B/459/201 5-201 6for an amount of Rs. 1,8 1,254l_ 3.M.B.No.8/46712015-2016 for an amount of Rs. 47,9591 4.M.B.No.B/47312015-2016for an amount of Rs..l ,31 ,766/5. N,l. B No.B/453/201 5-201 6for an amount of Rs.3,47, 1 85/_ 6,M.8 No.B/455/20'1 5-2016for an amount of Rs.5,20,4601 7.|vl. B No.Bi469l201 5-201 6for an amount of Rs. 1,87,.1 1 O/O. IVI D No.8147012015-2016 for an amount of Rs.S,l2,l18l_

¶19

and further direct the respondents to forthwith release the pending bills as clarified by the commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration in Memo Roc.No.25250612020112, dated.28.12.2020 read with the clarification issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer, pubric Hearth Sub Division, wanaparty vide letter No. 02lDy. EE/WNp I 2021 -22, dated. 6.4.2021 .

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the council Resorution No.73, dt. 30.6.2021 passed by the Municipar councir, Amarachinta and further direct the 4th respondent to act upon the rr'4emo in Roc. No.2525o6t2o2or,2, dated.28.12.2020 0f the 2nd respondent read with the crarification letter No.02/Dy.EE/w Npr2o21-22,dated. 6 4 2021 issued by the Dy. Executive Engineer, p.H. Sub Division, wanaparty.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioners : SRt. p RAGHAVENDRA REDDy

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 & 2 : Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV f;iiJ[illlif Respondent Nos 3 & 4 : SRr N eRAvEEN KUMAR , sc FoR

¶24

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶25

.I-IIIi HO,.'I}t-[- SI{I JUSTICI.] A. AI}IIISTIEK I{I,]DDY

¶26

WRI't PE'IITION No.6668 of 2022

¶27

oRI)ritr:

¶28

lleald the learned counsel tbr the petitioners, tlre learnecl Governrrent I'lcaclcr tir r Municipal Adnrinistration and Urban Development appcaring on behalf ol resl'ronclcnt Nos.l and 2, and Sri N. Praveen Kutuar, the lealned Stancling Counsel lbr Municipalities appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 ancl 4. Witli their consent, the present Writ Petition is being disposed of at the adnrission stage.

¶29

Questioning^{the actionof the respondentNo. I in not taking any action} on the Appeal dated 19. 12.2021, filed for cancellation of Resolution^No.73, dated 30.0(r.2021, passed by the Municipal Council, Amarchinta,^Wanaparthy District, thc pctitioners have filed the present writ petition.

¶30

Learned Government Pleader, on instructions,^{has stated} that^the Appeal tiled by the petitior.rers itself is not maintainable, as there is^no provision under which the appeal filed by the^{petitioner can be entefiained by} the Principal Secretary, and^{has drawn the attentionof the Court to Section} 65 of the Telangana^{MunicipalitiesAct,20l9 (for short, 'the Act')to buttress} his corrtention that the appeal^{is not rnaintainable}

¶31

¶32

I A perusal of the record discloses that the^{petitioners have filed the} Appeal undcr Section 65 of the Act betbrc^{the Principal Sccrctarl'.NlLrnicipal} Administration and Urban Development^{Depaflment,and pursuant to thc} salne, the Secretary to the Government^{virle Menio dated 11.01.2022has} requested the Commissioner & Director of^{MunicipalAciministration,} Hydelabad, to examine the matter ar-rd takc^furlher actioll.^{S u bsccir-rcrltly. tlic} Director of Municipal Administration lrrlc Metno clated^{2 t.0 I .2022has} directed the Municipal Cornmissioner, Amarchinta^{Municipality. to subnrita} detailed report lbr taking further necessary^action. Thc record^lirrthcr discloses that the Deputy Dircctor ol'Municipal^{t\dnrinistlation,ll1'dcralratl,} has instructed the Municipal Contnrissioner, Antarcltinta.^{to placc the lllattcr} befbre the Council and take necessary action^{lbr payment ol'tlicpendingbills} of the petitioner. Learned counsel has statcd that the clirection ol'thc^I)rinclpal

¶33

Secretary in liming tl.re subordinates to look into the matter and then in placing the matter befbre the very sar.ne Council which has ltassed the resolution which is the subject matter of the appeal pencling bcfil'c tlic Principal Secretary is not only illegal, arbitrary, bad and also contrary to Section 65 o1'the Act

¶34

¶35

In view ol the above, this Coufi is of the opinion tliat the Principal

¶36

Secretary has to take necessary action on the Appeal filed by the petitioners and cannot delegate the subordinates to pass order.

¶37

It is apt to refer to the Section 65 of the Act, which reads as under:

¶38

"65. (1) The Government ma)), either suo-moto or on represenlation by anlt member, the Chairperson or the Vice('hairperson, the District Collector and the Comntissioncr, h.t, orcler, in w'riting,-

¶39

kr)^{cancel on.y resoluliott passed,} order issued, or licensc or pernission granted; or

¶40

(lt) prohibit the doing of an.v act, u,hich is obout to be dorrc, or is being done, in pursuance or under lhc colour of this Act, if, in lheir opinion,-

¶41

(i) such resolution, order, license, permission or act has been passed, issued, granled or authorized is not in accordance v,ilh lav,: or

¶42

(ii) such resolution, order, license, permission or act is in exces.s of lhe powers conferred by this Act or any other (ndclmc l: of

¶43

(ii, the above acts menlioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) lhe continuance in ./brce of such act or pernissions rs likel.v to cause .financial loss to the Municipali , danger to li/b, hcalth or safetv lo lruman li/b or is likely to leatl to a riot or disturb puhlic peacc and tranquility or is against public inlcresl:

¶44

Proyidcd that the Got,ernnent behre taking action undcr lhis scctiot't ot1 the groutds referred to in clat$es (a)

¶45

¶46

and (b), shall give^{rhe authorily orperson concented un} o ppo r lutlⁱ ty -fo r^{exp I an a t i ort :} Provided further^that rrothing irt this sub-sectiott shall enable the^{Governmenl to} set eside an.l, clcctiorr lhat has been held. (2) l|therc in tha oPinion ol thc Disu ict Collector, immediate action is^neccssor.Y ot1 thc^{groundsrcferrcd} sub-clausc⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾ qf^{clausc (b) ofsub-section (l),lrc ttt} ma! suspend the resolution,^order, license,^pertnissiott act for such pcriocl as^lrcthinl;s .lit, pendirtg the cxt'rcisc their pov,er under sub-section^{( I} ).^"

¶47

Having regard to^{tl.re fact tliat the Appcal tiled by the petitioners is still} pending betbre the respondent^{No.l, u'ithout going into thc l1lcl'itsor} demerits of the case,^{the writ petitionis disposedof directingthe respondent} No.l to dispose of the said Appeal,^{ifnot already disposed of, as} expeditiously as^{possible,preferably, with a period of fbur (04)weekstiom} the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis^{order,duly takinginto considerationthe} provisions of the Act as well as the repoft^{of the commissionerand Directot'} ol Municipal Adrnin istration.

¶48

Miscellaneous applications, il^{any pencling, shall starrtl closecl.-['hcre} shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

SD/.PADMA NABHA^REDDY ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR

¶50

//TRUE^COPY' SECTION^OFFICER

¶51

To, \ 1 The Principal^{Secretary, MuncipalAdminstration andUrban Development} DeDartment,^{BRKRsecretar,"ierirdi;g.,aiate.of TetanoanaHvderabad} 2 rhe Commissioner^{and Di;;;;;;'Nn;;icipal Administratlon Governmentof} f"Lngrna,^{AC Guards, HYderabad'}

¶52

1\r\

¶53

The Chair Person, Ivlunicipal Council, Amarachintha Municipality, Wanaparthy District.

¶54

The Commissioner, Amarachintha Municipality, Amarachintha, Wanaparthy District.

¶55

One CC to SRl. P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI N PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR IMUNICIPALITY, Advocate[OPUC]

¶56

Two CCs to GP FOR IUCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶57

B. Two CD Copies

¶58

One Spare Copy e B BS .P

HIGH COURT

DATED:1610312022

ORDER

WP.No.6668 of 2022

'^a' 1sE S i;. .,6.
( <br>^
{:'
:
01 APB iil?2
t?
r,l

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.5

¶65

<br>

P. Venkateshwar Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Venkateshwar Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

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

KannekantiYadagiri Vs State of Telangana

Nagulavancha Pushpalatha and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Gongalla Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Bygging India Limited Vs Ncc Limited

Sri B.Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Sri.Boorla Yellaswamy Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others