Allowed

Sri Vinod Kumar Agarwal v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Jul 2023WP/18648/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged municipal revocation orders as illegal and arbitrary under Article 226. The High Court set aside the impugned orders, directed the authorities to give a hearing to the petitioner followed by a submission of explanation, and reserved no costs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned revocation orders were set aside. The respondent authorities were directed to issue notice of objections, receive explanation, and pass appropriate orders within one week thereafter. No o

Sri Vinod Kumar Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I I I ! , i i I l i

¶2

t32521

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANOA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 18648 OF 2023

¶8

Eetween

¶9

Sri Vinod Kumar Agarwal, S/o Jagdish Prasad Aganval Age. 41 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o, H.No. 9-1-34115151, Bapu Nagar, Langer House, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a writ or order/ s more partrcularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring declaring the impugned revocation orders, vide letter No.103203/AMEE|1233|2O21, dated 03-12-202'l issued by the 2nd respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of^{principlesof natural justice and} contrary to Telangana Municipalities^{Act, 2019and violativeof Articles, 14, 19, 21} and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and^{Consequentlyto set-asidethe same.} IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court maybe pleased to} suspend the impLigned revocation orders,^{videletter No.103203lAMEE|123312021'} dated 03-12-2021 issued by the 2nd^{respondentin the interestof justice,pending} disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. Y^{VIJAYA BHASKER REDDY} Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP^{FORMCPL ADMNURBAN DEV} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 : SRI B JAGANMADHAV RAO,}

¶17

SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON''}I.E MRS JUSTICE SUREPALL:I NAI.II:}A W RtT PETITION o.18648 0F 2023

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Hear,l earned counsel for the petition€:r, learned Government Frleader for Municipal Administr.a tio n and Urban Der elopment Department appea ring for respondent^,'l().1 and Sri B.Jagan Madhav Rao,. learned Standing C:rrnsel for Municipality .appearingy for respondent llc,.2.

¶22

The pe itioner approached the Court s€el{ing the prayer as fol ows:

¶23

.T , Issue a writ or order/s more part c.rlarly on(, in il e nature of Writ of Mandamus cleclarin; te imp11gn6 J revocation orders v de lett3r No.10l2 )'.i/AMEE/ t233/2027 dated 03/LZt Z0:'.7 iss Lrc:d y the 2nd respondent as teing illegal arbitra r-i, (,n.onstitutional violative of ltrinciltl,rs tf natural ;ustice and contrary to Tel,rr 3arra Municipa ities Act 2019 and violative of Artic e:; 1.1, 19, 2) nC 3004 of the Constitution cf Indie ard Con ser; u )r tly to set-aside the same an,J pass su( h oth':r ,tr er or orders as are deemed fit and p,.opt:r in t '',: :ir rumsta nces of the case."

¶24

It :; re )resented by learned Standirrg C()Lrns€)l for respondent l'lo 2 that the wrrt petition could bt: dispor,ed of by

setting aside^{the impugned revocation orders vide lettel'} No.103203/4MEEI^{1233/2021,dated 03'72'2021 and the} respondent authorities^{would bring the objectionsto the} notice of the^{petitionerand on receipt of the said objections'} the^petitioner shall^{submit his explanationw!tltin a reasonable} period.

¶29

Bringing the said^{submissionon record, the writ petition} ls allowed setting^{asidethe impugned revocationorders vide} letter No.103203/AMEE11233/2021,^{dated 03'12'2021and} the respondent^{authoritiesare directed to bring the objections} to the notice of^{the petitioner withina periodo1' one week} from the date^{of receipt of copy of this order, and on receipt} of such objections,^{the petitionershall submithis explanation} to the said^{objectionswithin a periodof two weeks thereafter'} andonsubmissionofsuchexplanationbythepetitioner'the respondent authorities^{are entitled to pass appropriateorders} in accordance with^{the provisionsof TS-bPASSAct and the} Rules made^{thereunder within a period of one week from the} date of receipt^{of such explanation' In case' if no orders are} passed by the respondent^{authoritieswithin the time indicated} above, there shall^{be deemed approvalof the applicationof}

¶30

the petitiore filed for- construction of builling. It is made clear that unt lassing of orders by the respcnden - , u torities within the nre oF cne week, upon furnish nrl rrf the explanation b z the petitioner to the responlent Arrth tritir:s, the petit r:n:r ;Irarl not proceed with any type of c()n;trulctions in his su l_-,jetr:i l,rnd. However, there shall be no ,:r Jer as to COStS.

¶31

It4iscel a' e lus petitions, if any, pendi-lg ir -his Writ Petition,:;ha r t;tnd closed.

¶32

SD/-V.KAVITHA ASSTSt'r'.N1BEGtSTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶33

sel:|rft oFFtcER

¶34

To, 1. The Princrcrtl S c[etary, lt/unicjpal Administration trnd tJ.b,ln ]evelopment

¶35

Department, Sta :^,rf l-elangana Secretariat Building;. Hydgr rbal.

¶36

1. The Commissicr1 flegnqur^{l,4unicipatity,SangaR:ddy t)ir;trict.}

¶37

1. One CC to SlFll ' "/IJAYA BHASKER REDDy, Advo;ate/1Ot'UC1 4. Two CCs to C t) rOR lVlCpL ADMN URBAN DEV ,H gh Cc u .t forl the State of Telangana at lly( erabad [OUT]

¶38

1. One CC to SR B JI\GAN N/ADHAV RAo, SC FoR MJNICI],.,LITY.[OPUC]

¶39

1. Two CD Copies

SB GJP {

I f

HIGH COUR.T

DATED:1Zl$t 2023

aa At: ,1',Ai.
,4
l.i-, {'-.
/:_i >ll
i:, 2;t
23 [\tE2m ii!
,. ll
.'1.''./
<br>

¶45

ORDER

¶46

WP.No.18648 of 2023

¶47

ALLOWING T {E WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO S TS

¶48

v,
<br>

Sri Vinod Kumar Agarwal v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vinod Kumar 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

Smt Renu Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana

Ganta Sujatha Vs The State of Telangana