✦ High Court of India · 10 Jan 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 10 Jan 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
10 Jan 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,067 words

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PET ITION NO: 36591 OF 2024 Between: B. Rukmini Bai, Wo. B.Karan Lal, Aged about: 64 Yrs, Occ: Senior Cit'iz-en nyo.-ti.tio.SZfzo6, Shapur Nagai, Near HMT Society, Qttlubullapur, IDA Jeedimetla, Medchal-Maikajgiri District' Telangana State ...PETITIONER AND 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal S.gtetqry'. Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Department secretariat, HyderaDao. 2. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation, Rep by its cornmissioner, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

3. The Mun icipal Commiss ioner, Gajulramaram Circle No. 26, Greater Hyderabad

4. The Divisional Engineer ( Banjarahills, Secunderabad Electrical), Lines, Hyderabad North, TGSPDCL' , Hyderabad. ...RESPONOENTS 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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to quash the speaking order No.01/G|R-26/KPZGHMCl2O24, Dated 16t1212o24, the speak'H]g order was pasted to the petitionef property wall on 21 .12.2024 that fact is carne to know the petitioner on 23.12.2O24, without, there being any enqujry/ Personnel hearing, Pursuant to Notice, Under section 461 A, pasted to Petitioner property wall by respondent No.3 to the writ Petition' for the petitioner property and speaking order, came to be passed on 1611212024, without there being any enquiry/personnel hearing, as of Violation of Principles of Natural Justice, quasi administrative authority function, in consequentially, not to take any -. ''action, pursuant to the speaking order passed by respondent No.3 to the writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the respondent No.3 to the writ Petition, not to take any action, Pursuant to the speaking order Passed by respondent No.3 to the writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 permit the petitioner to file the additional documents i.e., 1. Copy of Construction permission No.89B granted by the Gramapanchayat Quthbullapur along with plan(sketch). 2. C.opy of Metropolitan water supply connection service charges. 3. Copy of G.O.M S No.2033. 4. Copy of village map of Quthbutlapur village. 5. Copy of dharani status 6. Copy of Common order vide W.P.No.22234 22278, 22289, 22301 , 22314, 22356.22374, 22427,22428 and 22493 of 2023. 7. Copy of Extracts sec 630 of GHMC Act, 1955 for better adjudication of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VEERA BABU GANDU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI K. RAVI MAHINDER, S.C, FOR GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI R. VINOD REDDY, S.C. FOR TGSPOCL The Court made the following: ORDER I I I i/ OR"DER: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.3659r of 2024 Heard Sri Veerababu Gandu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Ravi Mahinder, leamed standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and leamed Govt.Pleader for Municipal Adminishation and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner herein is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the property i.e. H. No. 32-206 situated at Shapumagar, Suraram, Ward No.l29, Gajularamararn (tbr short, 'subject property') which is in 3'd respondent Circle. She is in possession of the subject property and she has been paying property tax to respondent Nos.2 and 3. While the matter stood thus, 3'd respondent has issued show cause notice dared 06.12.2024 to the petitioner herein stating that she is proceeding with the construction of ground + one upper floor in the subject property without obtaining permission. Seven (7) days time was granted to the petitioner to submit explanation. She has submitted explanation on t 1.12.2024. Without considering the said explanation, 3"1 i i i I I !i I I i 2 respondent has passed speaking order dated 16.12.2024. Challenging the said speaking order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Whereas, Sri Ravi Mahender, leamed Standing Counsel appearing lor respondent Nos.2 and 3 has produced written instruction, wherein it is stated that there is no consideration of explanation datcd I 1.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 06.12.2024. Therefore, liberty is granted to the petitioner and 3'd respondent to pass order afresh in accordanc,: with [aw.

4. [n the light of the said submission, the writ petition is disposed cf . 'l-he impugned speaking order dated 16.72.2024 of the responclenL is set aside. The matter is remanded back to 3'd respondent with a direction to consider the explanation dated 1 1 .12.202.1 submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 06.I1 202.4 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with lau b1 putting the petitioner on notice and affording him an opportun ity'. IJc shall complete the said exercise within four (4) rvceks fiorn the clate ol receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, 3'd 3 respondent is directed not to proceed further pursrant to the show cause notice dafed,06.12.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. I/TRUE COPY'/ Sd/. V. KAVITHA ANT REGISTRAR ASS ECTION OFFICER To, HYderabad. MuniciPal Corporatlon'

1. The Principal Secretary' Mun'rcipal Administration and Urban Development' ' o"ir'tt.,itii secretariat, Hyderabad' 2. The Commiss'loner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Tankbund' 3- The Deputy Comm.issioner' Gajulramaram Circle No 26' Greater Hyderabad 4. The Divisional Engineer (Electrical), Lines, Hyderabad North, TGSPD.L' " B;;r;;i;ili;, Secunierabad' HYderabad' 5. one CC to SRI VEERA BABU GANDU' Adrpcate IOPUCI 6 one CC to SRI K RAVI MAHINDER' S'C' for Greater Hyderabad Municipal T one CC to SRI R VINOD REDDY' S'C' foTTGSPDCL IOPUCI .l,3:f,S,..,f"3,:,:%,Y:g:'3:ll5iil!,55,Xf"1"3rff '"Deveroprnent'Hish CorPoration [OPUC] Two CD CoPies o KKS MP HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 .iHE S14 c O \%\ \ 2 4 Fi:J ZIJZS J: \ '- ir. .\-ii: c*?- o ORDER WP.No.36591 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \tt o,IUf

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments