Smt. Kasam Swetha v. The State of Telangana

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, to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned Notice No. G1l87|BJMC|2O22-23 dl.2-2-2023 threatening to remove the structures constructed in Plot No. 25 in Sy.No. 1sO/Part, situated at Kismathpur village, under Bandtaguda Jagir Municipal Corporatign, Gandipet Mandal, R.R.Diskict, within 24 hours without properly considering the reply dt. 3O.1 .2023 given by the petitioner to the show cause notice dt. 19.1.2023, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unilateral and irrational and consequently set aside the same, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Cou( deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant stay of all further prodeedings pursuant to the impugned Notice No. 01/TP/BJMC/2022-23 dt. 2- 3-2022 issued by the 2nd responder., pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: Ragamgari Muthyalu, S/o. Late Sandaiah Age 60 years, Occ. Business Rl/o. H.No- 12-1-33119, Dattatreya Nagar Colony, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad 500 028. AND '1 . Smt. Kasam Swetha, w/o Parupati Sheshivardhan Reddy, aged about 27 years, occ. Housewife r/o H.No. 1-378, Mogilipalem, Karimnagar. ...PETITIONER

2. The State of Telangana, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

3. Bandlaguda Jagir Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Bandlaguda Gandipet Mandal, R.R.District. ...PETITIONER 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 vacate the status-quo orders granted in l.A.No.1 o'f 2023 in W.P.No.3299 of 2O23 dated 06-02-2023 and dismiss the Writ petition with costs in the interest of justice. ,..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.CHANDRA REODY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : ASST.GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SMT.M.BHAGYASRI, SC FOR MC Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI N.N.SOMENDRA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.3299 OF 2023 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P.Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No. 1, Smt.M.Bhagrasri, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri N.N.Somendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. The claim of the petitioner herein is that she has obtained letter of approval for cuinmencement of work instant approval, dated 10.06.2021 from respondent No.2 for construction of stilt for parking + two upper floors. According to the petitioner, she has made construction, strictly in accordance with the said building permit order and there is no deviation. However, according to respondent No.3, petitioner has constructed the building in deviation of the said building p"r-it o.d".' Therefore, he has submitted a representation dated 1O.O2.2O22 to respondent No.2 with a request to take action against the petitioner. On receipt of the said representation, respondent No.2 has issued show-cause notice dated 19.0 1.2O23 to the _\. .-rt ) petitioner herein and 7 days time was granted to her to submit explalation. She has submitted explanation on 30.01.2023

3. Perusal of the record would also reveal that respondent No.3 has filed rvrit petitions vide W.P.Nos.lO924 and 12153 of

2022. Vide common order dated 29.07.2022, this Court disposed of the said writ petitions, directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 1O.O2.2O22 submitted by respondent No.3 rvith a request tc take action against the petitioner for making construction in deviation to the said building permit ordcr

4. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has issued the aforesaid shou,-cause notice rlated 19.O1.2023 and the petitioner herein has submittecl explanation on 30.O1.2023. In the said show- cause notice, there is no speciltc mention with regard to the deviation in construction made by the petitioner herein lna tabular form. Therefore, respondent No.2 vide impugned final notice dated 02 .O2.2023 directed the petitioner to remove the deviated portion of tl-re construction. Challenging the said hnal order, the petitioner hled the present writ petition 3

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has approached respondent No.2 with a request to regularize the said unauthorized construction. Respondent No.2 has imposed an amount of Rs.3,318/- towards penal charges to respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 disputed the same. It is only penal charges. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said lrnal notice dated 02.02.2023, she has to prefer an appea-l in terms of Section 252(11 ot the Telangana Municipalities Act,

7. Perusal of the said Iinal notice dated 02.02.2023 would \ reveal that the same was issued by respondent No.2 after issuance of show-cause notice, dated ]g.Ol .2023 and on consideration of reply, dated 30.01 .2023. Respondent No.2 has also' complied with the order dated 29 .O7 .2022 in W.P.Nos.1O924 and 12153 of 2022. Therefore, the impugned lrnal notice dated 02.02.2023 is appealable in terms of Section 252(Ll of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2Ot9. lt is not the case of the petitioner that the said impugned final notice of respondent No.2 was in violation of principles of natural justice and the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities I I 4 t\ Act, 2Ol9, to maintain the present writ petition despite availabilitv of alternative remedy of appeal.

8. In the light of the same, the writ petition is disposed of granting 1ibert1, to the petitioner to prefer an appeal chalienging the final notice dated O2.O2.2O23 and liberty is granted to the petitioner to tal<e all the pleas and contentions which she has raised in the present writ petition including payment of Rs.3,318/ tou'ards penal charges before the Appellate Authority and it is for tl-re Appellate Authority to consider the same. h-r the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. To, l)$Ecnox //TRUE COPY// AS Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL GISTRAR i\'$':: OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner, Bandlaguda Jagir Municipal Corporation. 3. One CC to SRI P.CHANDRA REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 5 One CC to SMT M.BHAGYASRI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY/MC. [OPUC] 6 One CC to SRI N.N.SOMENDRA REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies. BSK Ite) =:--!r HIGH COURT KL,J DATED:2010212025 ORDER WP.No.3299 of 2023 :-!ar{ -) o 0 7 iCtS f 's,r t OF.'PA I C*(! l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS C9 ui' W