Allowed

Sri. Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Jul 2023WP/18687/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging revocation orders issued by the Ameenpur Municipality, the High Court set aside the orders, directing authorities to allow the petitioner to present objections and explanations within specified timelines in compliance with principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned revocation orders set aside; redirect authorities to consider petitioner's objection and explanation within timeline; deemed approval if no order passed.

Sri. Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 18687 OF 2023

¶8

Between

¶9

Sri. Ashok Kumar Aganaral, S/o Musaddi Lal Age. 54 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 1 O-5-1 21 2ABC, Banjarahills, Road No. 1, Hyderabad

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

...RESPONDENTS 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 lssue a writ or order/ s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned revocation orders, vide letter No.1032161AMEE1123512O21, dated O3-12-2021, issued by the 2nd respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of principles of 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 sam.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 1 51 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 inlpugned revocation orders, vide letter No.1032161AMEE1123512O21, dated 03-12-2021 issued by the 2nd respondent in the interest of^{justice, pending} disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. BALU DUDEKULA Counsel for the Respondent No.l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI B JAGAN MADHAV RAO,

¶18

SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALI-I N',NDA

¶21

I I/RIT PETITION No.18687 OF 2023_

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitiorer., learned Governmen L Pleader for Municipal Adm in is tr,rtirf,n and Urban De velopment Department appe arin,g for respondent No.1 and Sri B.Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing lounsel for Municipality app -'a rirrg for respondent No.2.

¶24

The pctitioner approached the Court ser:king the prayer as fc llows:

¶25

-o Issue a writ or order/s more partir:ularly one tn h,l nature of Writ of Mandamus declz rirrg the inrpugr -.<l^{revocationorders vide} let:ter No.103 a16/AMEE/t235/202t dated 03lLt,l2o2r issu ed by the 2nd responden[ as bein( illegal a rb itra r /^{unconstitutiona} I violative of^prin( iples oF natural justice and contrary to Tela rgtrna Municip rl ties Act 2019 and violative of Arti:lr:s 14, 79, 27 ard 3004 of the Constitution of Indre .rnd Conseq re ntly to sei-aside the same and pes:, strch other o der or orders as are deemed f it anc l)rolter in ther c r(:umsta nces of the case."

¶26

It is r l['resented by learned Standing^(]c)unr;el for

¶27

respondont N r.2 that the writ petition could tte disp(_)sel oF by

¶28

¶29

setting aside^{the impugned revocationorders vide letter} No,103216/AMEE:1235/2021,^{dated 03't2'2021and the} respondent authorities^{wouldbring the objections to the} noticeofthepetitionerandonreceiptofthesaidobjections' the^{petitioner shall submit his explanation rryithin a reasonable} period.

¶30

Bringing the^{said submissionon record,the writ petition} is allowed^{setting aside the impugnedrevocation orders vide} letter No.103216lAMEE/123512O21,^{dated 03'12'2021and} the respondent^{authorities are directed to bring the objections} to the^{noticeof the petitioner within a periodof one week} from the date of^{receiptof copy of this order' and on receipt} of such objections,^{the petitionershall submit his explanation} to the said^{objectionswithin a period of two weeks thereafter'} andonsubmissionofsuchexplanatioirbythepetitioner,the respondentauthor|tiesareentitledtopassappropriateorders in accordance^{with the provisions of TS-bPASSAct and the} Rules made^{thereunder withina period of one week fromthe} date of^{receipt of such explanation' In case' if no ordersare} passed by the respondent^{authoritieswithin the time indicated} above, there^{shall be deemedapproval of the applicationof}

¶31

-l

¶32

the^petitic)n,,r Filed For construction of bu lding .t s made clear that lr !il passing of orders by the respondr:irt au:horities within tht: time of one wee9 upon f :rni:;trrr g of the explanatio'r l),the petitioner to the respoldent ,r\utlorities, the petition€^- :;hall not proceed with any type of^(;il rst'uctions in his subier t land. However, there shall t,e no ord€)r as to costs.

¶33

Miscell rneous petitions, if any, pen(ling in tl- is Writ

¶34

Petition. sl- al -.tand closed,

¶35

SD,/. K.SIIEERAMA MURTHY ASSI]]TANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SI=GTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Princip;al Secretary, IVlunicipar Administratior and [Jrban Development Department, S ate of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, H tc:raltad. 2. The Commissi,,n3r, Ameenpur Municipality, Sanga Redd,r t.ristrict. 3. One CC to SF 3ALU DEDELULA, Advocate.[Optjc] 4. Two CCs to G^I FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV.High (l()urt for the State of Telangana at F yclerabad_ [OUT]

¶40

One CC to SRI B JAGAN MADHAV RAO, SC FOR MUNEI rAt.tTy.tOpUCI 6. Two CD Copie

GJPc\tk

HIGH COURI

DATED:1810i llr-023

ORDER

WP.No.18687 of 2023

r<br>- -:';;-= =--
at',- ' tt. rt .
4' < ("
/i.""
lt:'; r)\I Nll
xi,
_- i:- "

¶48

ALLOWING T {E WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO STS

¶49

0rtoM

Sri. Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ashok 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

Smt Renu Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Vinod Kumar Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana

Ganta Sujatha Vs The State of Telangana