Remanded

M/s. Siri Function Hall v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Oct 2024WP/28392/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court set aside a demolition order passed by the Ramagundam Municipal Commissioner as it was issued without serving a show-cause notice or affording an opportunity to the petitioner to explain, violating principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The speaking order dated 24.09.2024 is set aside. The petitioner must submit an explanation within one week.

M/s. Siri Function Hall Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:28392 OF 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s. Siri Function Hall, Rep by its Proprietor, Penta Rajesham, Sio. Penta Ramaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ. Corporator and Business, Rl/o. H.No.17- 4 -192, Santosh Nagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam, Peddapalli District.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 State of Telangana, Through its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Telangana.

¶14

2 The Commissioner, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation. Peddapalli District. 3 The Dlstrict Task Force Team, Peddapalli District.

¶15

.,.RESPONOENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the illegal action of the Respondent No. 2 namely the Cornmissioner, Ramagundam Muncipal Corporation in passing impugned dernolition order dated 2410912024 vide ROC No. No. G1/41ITPS/RMC|2O24 is illegal, arbitrary and just without jurisdiction and against the principal of natural justice and consequently suspend the impugned demolition order dated 2410912024 vide ROC No. No. G 1/41lTPSi RMCt2024.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC pruyinj'tn"t in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay

¶19

of all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned demolition order dated 2410912024 vider Roc No. No. Gi/41lTps/RMCl2o24 passed by the Respondnet No.2, pending disposal of the above Writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.V.SUDHAKAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents No.1&3: cp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV counsel for Respondents No.2 : SRr KADARU PRABHAKAR RAo, sc FoR Mc The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

¶24

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN

¶25

WRIT PETIT ION No.2E392 OF²⁰²⁴

¶26

ORALOR.DER:

¶27

Heard Mr. K.V. Sudhakar, leamed^{counsel for the petitioner} and Mr. Kadaru Prabhakar^{Rao, leamed Standing Counsel for} respondent No.2.

¶28

The petitioner herein^{is claimingthat it is the absolute owner} and possessor of the^{house bearing No.l7-1-84l1,admeasuring} 1217.33 square^yards consisting^{of 2998.62 square feet ACC, situated} at Ramagundam Municipality,^{PeddapallyDistrict,on the strengthof} registered sale deed bearing^{document No.88l of 2008,dated} 14.02.2008. lt is running a function^{hall.In proof of the same, it has} filed copies of sale deed,^{permission and property tax receiptsetc'} Even then, respondent No.2^{has issuedimpugned speaking orderdated} 24.09.2024 stating that the^{petitionermade unbuthorizedconstruction} of Siri Function Hal[,^{situated at Addaguntapalli, Division No.37'} Godavarikhani. Respondent^{No.2 directedthe petitionerto remove} the unauthorized construction^{within fifteen (15) days fromthe date of} receipt of copy of the^{impugredspeaking order, failing which, the} same would be removed^{with the help of DistrictTask Forcei.e.,}

¶29

¶30

KL,J u l' \o28392 of:024

¶31

respondent No 3 herein. Challenging the said ordeq the petitioner filed the present writ petition

¶32

It is the specific contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 rssued the speaking order without serving show-cause notice dated 12.09.2024 and without calling explanation from it. Therefore, the impugned speaking order is in violation of principles of natural justice and also the procedure laid down under the Municipalities Act, 2019.

¶33

On thc other hand. Mr. Kadaru Prabhakar Rao. learned Standirrg Counsel. has produced show-cause notice dated 12.09.2024 and the speaking order dated 24.09.2024 to show that one Mr. S. Bakkaiah, Mobile No.9182004055 has received both the show-cause notice as well as impugned speaking order. Even then, tle petitioner is claiming that it has not received she said show-cause notice. However, Ieamed counsel lor the petitioner, on instructions, would conteftl that Mr. S. Bakkaiah is no way concemed with thc petitioner.

¶34

However, now leamed Standing Counsel served copies of the said show-cause notice and the speaking order on leamed counsel for the pehtroner.

¶35

¶36

KI .J \'P No 2819: ol-:021

¶37

In the light ofthe above and^{alsoconsidering the fact that the} petitioner is running function hall since^{2008, this writ petitionis} disposed of setting aside^{the speakingorder dated24'09'2024 issrcd} by respondent No.2. However,^{the petitioner shall submit explanation} to the show-cause notice^{dated 12-09 -2024within one (01) week from} today. On receipt of^{the saidexplanation, respondent No'2shallpass} a speaking order afresh, by^{puuingthe petitioneron notice and} affording it an opportunity.^{He shall completethe saidexercise within} a period of four^{(04) weeks from the date of receipt of said} explanation by the^{petitioner. Till then, respondent Nos'2 and 3 are} directed not to proceed^{further pursuantto the show-cause notice} dated 12.09.2024. In^{the circumstancesof the case,thereshallbe no}

¶38

order as to costs

¶39

As a sequel thereto,^{miscellaneouspetitions,if any, pendingin}

¶40

this writ petition shall stand^closed.

¶41

SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT^REGISTFAR ,/TRUE^COPYII v-,/

¶42

SECTION^OFFICER

¶43

\ o I The Principal^{Secretary, Municipal Administrationand -UrbanDevelopment} ) fflzxHTl.',s[?fll3htJt'nerfi^{Rf,l?"1ffi ,J$'r#'L?i;PeddaparriDistrict} 3. 4 5 ili?"L:{5Ei[l.sT'Hft^{fl;['{':[{tsi'l?1s.c.,,,r.r,heS,a,e.r} 6 l".l:BSi3 {Rl'Il*o"ro^{RAo' Advocate' toPUCl} 7 Two CD CoPies. L. BSK

i )

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411012024

ORDER

WP.No.28392 ot 2024

./.- r,r\ | t: :
lrl
\ -:. 17 D t 2t?1

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS

M/s. Siri Function Hall v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Siri Function Hall v. 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

Shaik Khader Vs The State of Telangana

Battu Madhuraju Vs Sri.M.Hanumantha Rao and 2 Others

Aredla Narayana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Muchakurthy Chandramouli Vs The State of Telangana

G. Sangram Vs The State of Telangana

P. Anantha Reddy Vs the State of Telangana