Heard Mr. M v. Pratap Kumar, leamed

Judgment

1. The State of.Telangana, Req !y its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Develbpment, Seiretariat buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Nirmal lMunicipality, Rep, by its Commissioner. Office of Municipal Council, Eidgoan, Nirmal, Telangana 504'106. ...PETITIONERS ...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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 in issuing Show Cause Notice dated 25.04.2025 bearing No. G.1/57ISC/NRML/2025 as being, illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights enshrined under A(icle 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, 1950 and violative of principles of natural justice T lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 suspend the Show Cause Notice dated 25.04.2025 bearing No. G1/57iSClNRML/2025 issued by 2nd Respondent pending disposal of the present petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. M.V. PRATAP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN OEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDy SC FOR MC The Court made the following: ORDER & HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY I,VIUT PETITION No.14031 oF 202s ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing show cause notice No.G 1 /57ISC/NRML/2025, dated 25.04.2025, as being iltegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. Heard Mr. M. V. Pratap Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for respondeht No.2 Municipality; and perused the material on record.

3. The petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of the subject property bearing H.Nos.7-3 -24l A, 7 -3 -24, 7 -3 -241 al l, 7 -3 -24 /B (old), 7-3-l0l (new), 7 -3-2411, 7-3-24lNa. situated ar opposite police Station, Nirmal having purchased the same under separate registered sale deeds. The petitioners have given the subject property for development to one Mr. Allolla Tirupathi Reddy and Ms. Chatla Saritha under development-cum-General Power of Attomey bearing document No.5592 of 2023 dated 04.08.2023. The developers of the petitioners applied for building permission vide application dated 02.07 .2024 and the same was approved by respondent No.2 vide building permit No.00l l/ ;&l. -_ ,.. .1 2 8P1302812024, dated 09.08.2024. That in compliance of conditions in the building permission, the petitioners through their developers executed registered mortgage deed bearing document No.4424 of 2024 dated

23..07 .2024 and Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.4425 of 2024 dated23.07.2024 in favour of respondent No.2.

4. It is submitted that while building construction is being undertaken, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice No.Gl/5'7lSCl NRML/2025, dated 25.04.2025, alleging that the petitioners obtained building permission by submitting fabricated documents and by misrepresentation and they were directed not to proceed with any construction in the subject property and to explain as to why their building permission should not be revoked.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned show cause notice is vague; no details of alleged fabrication of documents and misrepresentation of facts were stated in the impugned notlce. The petitioners were not provided with a reasonable time to submit reply to the show cause notice. Only three days time is given for submitting reply. If reasonable time and opportunity is provided by 3 pointing out material particulars of the allegations in the impugned show cause notice, petitioners would submit necessary reply and explanation.

6. Leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 Municipality submitted that fiesh show cause notice will be issued to the petitioners giving details of fabrication of documents and also pointing out misrepresentation made by them in obtaining the building permission.

7. On perusal of the impugned show cause notice dated25.04.2025, it is seen that details of alleged fabrication of documents and misrepresentation are not clearly mentioned. It is only stated that the petitioners have obtained building permission by submitting fabricated documents and misrepresented the authority. I I

8. Prima facie, the impugned show cause notice dated 25.04.2025 is vague and is issued in violation of principles of natural justice. Thus it is liable to be set aside.

9. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notice No.G1/57/SC/NRML/2025, dated 25.04.2025 issued by respondent No.2 Municipality is set aside. Consequently, respondent No.2 Municipality is directed to give clear details/particulars of the 4 1 documents allegedly fabricated and alleged misrepresentation indulged by the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners shall be given opportunity of hearing and to submit reply and thereafter appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T.TIRUMALA DEVI REGISTRAR ON OFFICER A,\':17 i 1 'J sEcrt To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Department of Municipa Developmbnt, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad il6tdministration and Urban \

2.TheCommissioner,NirmalMunicipality,Officeof-MunicipalCouncil'Eidgoan' Nirmal, Telangana 5041 06.

3. One CC to SRl. M.V. PRATAP KUMAR Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY SC FOR MC [OPUCI 5.TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLADMNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana. [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies KKS N- HIGH COURT BVR,J DATED:02105t2025 l ) -,- sTa ,e lr.o 7 2 B trAr ziifi z o !, q ) o o t. t Dg S rr r a r- r--O. t ORDER WP.No.14031 of 2O2S ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS 1 \