Disposed

Saini Satish Kumar, Bhongir Dist v. Prl Secy, Panchayat Raj Dept., Hyd and 9 Ot

Telangana HC13 Apr 2022WP(PIL)/55/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of two writ petitions challenging a show cause notice for alleged road encroachment, holding such petitions premature. The court directed petitioners to file a detailed reply and instructed the Gram Panchayat to pass a speaking order after considering said reply before taking any consequential action.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file a detailed reply within thirty days; show cause notice petitions dismissed without costs.

Saini Satish Kumar, Bhongir Dist Vs Prl… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.6341 of 2017 and W.P.(P|L) No.55 of 20'17

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 6341 OF 2017

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ekashila High School, 14-31212, Alair (V & M), Yadadrl Bhongir District. rep by its Secretary C.Upendar Reddy.

¶8

C.Upendar Reddy, S/o Late C.Adi Reddy, Seceratry, Ekashila High School, Aged about 56 years, Rlo 14-31212, Alair (V & M) Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

1, State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, (Panchayat Raj ) Secretariat, Hyd e ra bad.

¶12

The District Collector, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶13

3, The Tahsildar, Alair Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶14

Alair Gram Panchayat, Rep by its Secretary, Alair Village, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the unilateral notice dated 08.02.2017 bearing number 385/Gram Panchyat.A/2017 issued by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural^justice.

¶17

WPMP. NO: 7768 OF 2017

¶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

¶19

¶20

stay the operation of the notice dated 08.02.2017^{bearing number385/Gram}

¶21

Panchyat 412017 .

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. N. HARINATH

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent nos.2 & 3: GP^{FOR REVENUE}

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRl, M.RAM^GOPALRAO

¶26

SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶27

WRIT PETITION^(PlL) NO: 55 OF^20'17

¶28

Betwee n:

¶29

Saini Satish Kumar, S/o Siddi Ramulu,^{Aged 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.11-} 184/1 , Kranthi Nagar, Alair Village and Mandal,^{Yadadri-Bhongir District.} . .. - - ...PETITIONER

¶30

AND

¶31

State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Departmentof Panchayat} Rai, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶32

Tha District Collector, Yadadri-Bhongir at^{Pagidipally, Bhongir-508116.} (Erstwhile in Nalgonda District)

¶33

The District PanChayat Officer, Yadadri-Bhongir^{at Pagidipally, Bhongir-} 50Bl 16.

¶34

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Alair^{Mandal,Yadadri-Bhongir} District.

¶35

The Tahsildar, Alair [t4andal, Yadadri-Bhongir^District.

¶36

The lVlandal Educational Officer, Alair^{lr,4andal,Yadadri-BhongirDistrict.}

¶37

Alair Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Secretary,^{Alair village and Mandal,} YadadrioBhongir District.

¶38

B. Ekashila High School, H.No.14-312/'1 &^{14'31212,Alair Village and Mandal,} Yadadri-Bhongir District, Rep.by its Principal/lVlanagement. . . .

¶39

Smt.V.lndira, W/o C.Upendeir Reddy,^{Aged about 53 years.H No 14-312l1 &} 14-31212, Ekashila High School,^{Alair Village and Mandal,Yadadri-Bhongir} District.

¶40

lO.C.Upender Reddy, S/o Adi Reddy.^{Aged about 57 years. H.No.14-31211& 14-} 312i2, Ekashila High School, Alair Village^{and lvlandal,Yadadri-Bhongir} District.

¶41

...RESPONDENTS

¶42

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution^{of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more^{particularlyone in the natureof} writ of Mandamus declaring^{the action of the respondents No.2 to 6 in not taking} action against the respondent^{No.B school running by the respondents No.9 and} 10 and against the 7th respondent^{GramPanchayatwhich illegallypermitted the}

¶43

¶44

respondentsNo.gandl0toconstructrespondentNo.Sschoolcontrarytolawand without verifying^{the documentsthat the planwas submitted for constructionof} building by occupying^{20 feet Gram Panchayat road, which came into light through} theenquiryconductedbytherespondentsNo.4to6andinspiteofthereportofthe respondent No.5 to^{the 2nd respondent,being ilIegaI' arbitraryand contrary to the} provisionsoftheA.P.PanchayatRajActandviolativeofArticlesl4ofthe constitution of^{lndia apartfrom being violativeof principlesof natural justice apart} from being violative^{of principlesof natural justice and consequently direct} respondentauthoritiestoforthwithtakestepsagainsttherespondentsNo.Btol0' pursuant to the report of the^{Sth respondent in Letter No.8/3053/2016, dated16-} 11-2016, dated^{16-',1',1-2016submittedto the 2nd respondent,duly considering the} representations,^{dated02-01-2017and 23-06-2016 submitted by the petitioner to} the 2nd and^{4th respondents respectively'}

¶45

WP PI L)MP. NO:^{109oF 2017}

¶46

Petition under^{Section 151 cPC prayingthatin the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct} therespondentauthoritiestoforthWithtakestepsagainsttherespondentsNo.Sto l0,pursuanttothereportofthe5threspondentinLetterNo.8/3053/2016,dt. 16,11'20l6submittedtothe2ndrespondentaswellastherepresentations,dt. 23.06.2016 submitted^{by the petitionerto the 4th respondent' pending disposalof} the main writ Petition.

¶47

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRl. PAPAIAH PEODAKULA}

¶48

Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.1to 3 & 5:}

¶49

GP FOR PANCHAYAT^{RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT}

¶50

Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.4& 7: SRI G M'RAM GOPAL RAO'} SC FOR GRAM^PANCHAYAT

¶51

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.6:GP FOR EDUCATION}

¶52

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos'8 to 10: SRI JALLI KANAKAIAH}

¶53

The Court made^{the following: COMMON ORDER}

¶54

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRASHARMA} AND

¶55

THE HON'BL^{E SRI JUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI} W.P.No.6341 of^{2O17 and W.P{PILI.N o.55 of 2017}

¶56

COM MON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice^{Satish ChandroSharma)}

¶57

The petitioners in W.P.No.634l^{ol 2017 have filed the} said writ^{petition being aggrieved by the noticedated} 08.O2.2OL7 issued^{by the GramPanchayat office, Aler,} Yadadri Bhongir District,^{directingthe petitioners to show} cause as to why the^{construction be not removedas they} have occupied 20^{feet road,which is not their property'} The petitioners have^{straighta'1'ay rushed to this Court by} filing the writ^{petition and the fact remains that it is onlya} show cause notice^{issuedto the petitioners'}

¶58

Though a counter^{affidavit has been filed in} W.P.No.634i ol 2Ol7^{furnishingall the minutedetails in} respect of the so-called^{encroachmentover the road, the} fact remains that^{the writ petition is against a showcause} notice and the^{petitionerscan file adetailedand an} exhaustive reply^{to the show cause notice along with all the} title documents.

¶59

¶60

The Honble Supreme Court in the^{case of Union of} India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayanal^{has explainedthe} reasons why writ petitions are ordinarily^{not to be} entertained against a show cause notice^{or a charge sheet,} in the following words:

¶61

" 14. The reason u'h1r ordinanly a writ^petition should^not be entertained agarnst a mere show-cause^{notice or charge-} sheet is that at that stage the^{writ petitionmaybe held to be} premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notrce^does not give rise to any cause of action, because it^{does not} amount to an adverse order which affects the^{rightsof any} party uniess the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after consrdering the reply to the show-cause notice or aJter holding^{an errquiry} the authorlty concerned ma}, drop the^{proceedingsand/or} hold that the charges are nol estabhshed. It^{is well settled} that a writ petition lies when some right of any^{party is} infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet^does not infringe the right of any one. It is only^{when a final} order imposing some^punishment or otheiwise^adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said^party can be said to have any grievance.

¶62

Writ jurisdiction is discretionary^jurlsdiction and hence such discretion under Atticle 226 should^not ordinarily be exerclsed by^quashing a show-cause^notice or charge-sheet."

(emphasis added)

'^{(2006)12 scc 28}

t, (

In the light of the aloresaid, as W.P.No.6347 of 2Ol7 is only against the show cause notice, the petitioners shall be free to file a detailed reply within thirty days along with all the title documents and the Gram Panchavat sha11 be free to take appropriate action in accordance with 1aw after passing a speaking order taking into account the grounds raised by the petitioners. The Gram Panchayat sha11 therealter also be free to take consequential action in the matter.

¶69

With the aforesaid. W.P.No.6341 of 2al7 stands disposed of.

¶70

In vien, of the order passed in W.P.No"634l of 2017,

¶71

W.P(PIL).No.55 of 2017 also stands disposed of.

¶72

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sha11

¶73

stand closed. There sha11 be no order as to costs.

¶74

¶75

SD/-T,SRINIVAS A,SSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶76

To,

¶77

ThePrincipalsecretary,(PanchayatRaj),stateofTelangana,Secretariat, Hvderabad.

¶78

The District Collector,^{Yadadri Bhongir District.}

¶79

The TahsitOar,^{Alair l,4andal, Yadadri Bhongir District'} +. fn" S"Ci"trw,^{Alair Gram Panchayat,AlaiaVillage, Yadadri Bhongir} District.

¶80

5 Thu Ottri"t Panchayat^{Officer,Yadadri-Bhongir at Pagidipally, Bhongir-} 5081 16

<br>

6.TheMandalParishadDevelopmentOfficer'Alairlr/landal'Yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶85

?.6;"'C'Cto^{Sri N Harinath AdvocateIpIUCJ^} 8. Two ccs to^{Gp to. er,..'i'iiryr"t'iril"b i*rioevelopment,High court for} tS'S

¶86

?: ?3,., RX'* f,f^{"Jiln' 8"LY.%..t h e state or reI a n s a n a at}

¶87

n +f "sLt". Hvderabad. [OUTI

¶88

10 ij,n; #i; d;[,r.hu,^{Gopal Rao, sc ror Gram Panchavat[oPUC]} 11 6;; cc io sii^{pipaiar' Pecidakula,Advocate toPupl.} 12 iffi ;6.'i"- cp%i^{Eor"ati6i,'nGhco"ttor'theStateof relanganaat} Hvderabad. [OUT][OUT]

¶89

Hvderabad. [OUT][OUT]

¶90

I 3 d'.;"bdi; Sr,i^{Jaili Kanakaiah,Advocate toPU cl} 1 4 Two CD CoPies 1 5 One Spare^CoPY

CHR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310412022

COMMON ORDER

W.P.No.6341 of 2017 AND W.P.(PlL).No.55 ot 2017

¶99

rY\E ST4
o
1 2 JUi. 2022 z
!
,/, -a'
,
nEspATc
.}€

¶100

DISPOSING OF THE W.P.No.6341^{ot 2017 AND} W.P.(PlL).No.55 of 2017 WITHOUT COSTS

¶101

,gA
5

Saini Satish Kumar, Bhongir Dist v. Prl Secy, Panchayat Raj Dept., Hyd and 9 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saini Satish Kumar, Bhongir Dist v. Prl Secy, Panchayat Raj Dept., Hyd and 9 Ot

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

I.Narasimha Murthy Hyd Vs Secy Min of Law J and Home Affairs New Delhi and 8 Others

Letter submitted by the Member Secretary Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Shabbir Hussain alias Jaber Patel Vs The State of Telangana

Smt, Ganamalla Kalavathi, Vs M/s.Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Ch.Prakash Rao, Vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and

Ekashila High School, Vs State of Telangana