Marri Ravindra Reddy v. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Y. Rama Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Mr. D. Srinivas Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA The Court made the following Common Order: (per Sri Devinder Gupta, CJ) Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single judge on 22.9.2004 disposing of W.P.M.P. No. 16504 and W.V.M.P. No.2671 of 2004 and thereby making the interim order absolute during the pendency of the writ petition. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the order passed by the learned single judge is liable to be set aside inasmuch as there is no prima facie case in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 and that appellants are suffering heavy losses because of the stoppage of construction. When appeal was taken up for hearing, with the consent of the parties, we have also taken up Writ Petition No.12930 of 2004 for final disposal.

The permit which was granted to the appellants herein vide proceedings dated 5.7.2004 for construction of a multi storied building is under challenge by the writ petitioner-respondent on numerous grounds and prayer in the writ petition is to direct the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to dispose of the objections and representation of the writ petitioner dated 19.7.2004 wherein prayer has been made to cancel the permit alleged to have been obtained by the appellants by fraud and mis-representation. Pending writ petition, the writ petitioner prayed for staying construction and by way of an interim order, construction was ordered to be stopped. By the impugned order, the said interim order has been made absolute. Whether or not the permission for construction was obtained by playing fraud is a question which has to be necessarily determined by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and in case representation has already been made by the writ petitioner, there is no reason why there should be no decision on the said representation and objections after hearing the parties concerned.

The learned single judge, of course, granted stay of construction, may be, on forming a prima facie view that there is some substance in what the writ petitioner was saying. We are not now examining the said question in this appeal. We are of the view that the writ petition itself can be disposed of with direction to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and till decision is taken on the representation of the writ petitioner status-quo as regards construction shall continue to be maintained. Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of with direction Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad to hear and decide representation and objections of the writ petitioner dated 19.7.2004 after affording opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and the appellants herein and till decision is taken by the Commissioner, the appellants herein shall maintain status-quo as regards construction over the land in question.