Allowed

Smt Renu Agarwal v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Jul 2023WP/18641/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 18641 of 2023, the High Court of Telangana set aside revocation orders issued by the Ameenpur Municipality. The Court directed the authorities to communicate objections to the petitioner in one week, allow a two-week explanation period, and then pass orders within a further week, with directions against impedance on construction pending final orders.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of revocation orders; direction to authorities to communicate objections, admit explanation, and pass appropriate orders within a specified timeline; prohibition of construction impediments.

Smt Renu Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13252 |

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 18641 OF 2023

¶7

Between

¶8

Smt Renu Agarwal, W/o. Vinod Kumar Agarwal Age. 46^years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No. 9-1-34115151 , Bapu Nagar, Langer House, Hyderabad,^Telangana State.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat^Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Ameenpur Municipality, Sanga Reddy District. Represented by^its Commissioner.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petilion under Nticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith,the HighCourt may be pleased} to lssue a writ or order/s more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the^{nature of Writ of Mandamus,} declaring the impugned revocation orders, vide letter^No. 103199/AMEE/123212O21 , dated 0311212021^{issued by the 2nd respondentas} being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional,^{violative of principlesof natural justice and} contrary to Telangana Municipalities^{Act, 2019 and violative of Articles, 14, 19,21} and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and Consequently^{to set-aside the same.} lA NO: 1 OE2023

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} suspend the impdgned revocation orders,^{vide letter No. 103199/AMEE/123212O21,} daled 03112t2021 issued by the 2nd^{respondentin the interestof justice, pending} disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. Y^{VIJAYABHASKERREDDY} Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP^{FOR MCPLADMNURBAN DEV} Counsel for the Respondent No.2^{: SRI B JAGANMADHAVRAO'}

¶17

SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HOI l'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI Nr\flDl\

¶20

MRIT PETITION No.18641 OF 2O!!

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Hear( learned counsel for the petitioner/ learned Governmer t Pleader for Municipal Adrninistration and Urban Dr,velopment Department appr:aring for respondenl No.1 and Sri B.Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing lounsel for Municipality appe;rrirrg for respondent No.2.

¶23

2, The p :titioner approached the Court s;e,=king the

¶24

prayer as f< llows:

¶25

"^-c Issue a writ or order/s more palti :ul.rrly one in h3 nature of Writ of Mandamus decle ri rg the impugr erl revocation orders vide lelter No.1(l3Ltt9/AMEE/7232/202t dated 03/1r,./2021 issued by the 2nd respondent as bein(t illegal arbitrar / unconstitutional violative of prin( iples of natural justice and contrary to Tela rgzrna Municip rlities Act 2019 and violative of Arti:lr:s t4, 19, 27 a'td 300A of the Constitution of Indi: and Conseq r€ntly to set-aside the same and pas:, sr-rch other o der or orders as are deemed f t anc l,,roper in the c r(umstances of the case."

¶26

It is r tpresented by learned Stand ng Cc lns;el for respondent N r..Z that the writ petition could t,e dis:r:ser1 of by

¶27

¶28

setting aside^{the impugned revocatiorr orders vide letter} No.103199/AM^{EE:123212021,dated 03.12.702tand the} respondent authorities^{would bring the objections to the} noticeofthepetitionerandonreceiptofthesaidobjections' the^{petitioner shall submit her explanationwithin a reasonable} period.

¶29

Bringing the^{saidsubmission on record,the writ petition} is allowed setting^{aside the impugned revocation orders vide} letter No.103^{lgg/AvtEE/1232/2021,dated 03'12 '202L and} the respondent^{authoritiesare directedto bring the objections} to the notice of^{the petitioner within a period of one week} from the date^{of receipt of copy of this order, and on receipt} of such objections,^{the petitioner shall submit her explanation} to the said^{objectionswithin a period of two weeks thereafter'} and on submission^{of such explanation by the petitioner'the} respondent authorities^{are entitled to passappropriateorders} in accordance with^{the provisionsof TS-bPASSAct and the} Rules made thereunder^{withina period of one week from the} date of receipt^{of such explanation'In case, if no orders are} passed by the respondent^{authoritieswithinthe time indicated} above, there^{shall be deemed approval of the application of}

¶30

¶31

the petitio er filed for construction of b rildinrT. It rs made clear thal. L ltil passing of orders by the respondt:rrt aUthorities within the inre of one week upon furnishing the ex llanation by the p€|til oner to the respondent Authorities,^.e prstig;6ns1 shall not cr lc3ed with any type of construc ions; in he. subject land. Howe\ er-. there shall be no order as t( cost;.

¶32

Miscel aneous petitions, if any, per ding i'r tiis Writ Petition, shi ll stand closed.

¶33

ST)/- K.S R EETIAMA MURTHY ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR

¶34

//TRUE COPY//

¶35

i(' ::iECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

'l . The Principal Secretary, lrlunicipal Administration and tlrban Development Department, { tate of Telangana, Secretariat Build ngs, l-lytlerrrbad.

¶38

1. The Comm,ss oner, Ameenpur Municipalily, Sang.r Redc y Dislrict.

¶39

One CC to Sl ll. Y VIJAYA BHASKER REDDY, Aclvocat:/[OPJC] 4. Two CCs to t iF FOR MCPL AD[/N URBAN DEV ,High C rurl for the State of Telangana at^'lyderabad. [OUT]

¶40

One CC to SF I t] JAGAN MADHAV RAO, SC FOFI IvlUNlC)IPALITY IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copir s

¶41

¶42

GJP c\l-

HIGH COUR-'

DATED:1810-, 12023

ORDER

'=--
I ,:"
'l .)
i-t tl
|.-i,-l 1b AIJE 2U8 ,: ,:
'''..'

¶47

WP.No.1864'l of 2023

¶48

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CC STS

¶49

$
rntNM

Smt Renu Agarwal v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Renu Agarwal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Putta Srinivas Vs B.Shafiullah, I.F.S

R Mahesh Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Mohd.Yaseen Khaleel Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Vinod Kumar Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana

Ganta Sujatha Vs The State of Telangana