Telangana High Court
WP/28232/2007 of Smt. S. Shanti, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, on 28 December 2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 28232 of 2007 28.12.2007 Between: Smt. S. Shanti … Petitioner AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Alwal Circle, Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, Alwal, Secunderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C.M.R. Velu Counsel
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 28232 of 2007
28.12.2007
Between:
Smt. S. Shanti
… Petitioner
AND
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,Alwal Circle,Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner,Alwal, Secunderabad.
… Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C.M.R. Velu Counsel for the respondent : Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare showcause notice dated 12.12.2007 issued to the petitioner by the DeputyCommissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, AlwalCircle (the respondent herein) as illegal.
The petitioner was granted building permission on 22.08.2007by the respondent. By the impugned show cause notice, the petitionerwas called upon to file her explanation within seven days as to whythe said permission shall not be suspended till the case before theJoint Collector, Ranga Reddy District is finalized. The petitionerclaims that she submitted her explanation on 17.12.2007 and that sofar, no orders have been passed.
Heard Sri C.M.R. Velu, learned counsel for the petitioner andSri R. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the powerunder Section 344(6) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act,1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) is sought to be abused by the respondent byissuing the show cause notice. According to him, no grounds arementioned in the impugned show cause notice to exercise powerunder Section 344(6) of the Act.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, oninstructions, stated that the petitioner has not so far submitted herexplanation. He further stated that though Section 344(6) is mentionedin the show cause notice, the proper provision under which therespondent has power to take the proposed action is Section 450 ofthe Act.
In view of the fact that the proceedings beforethe respondent are pending, I am not inclined to gointo the merits of the above-mentioned contentions. It is not the case ofthe petitioner that the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue theimpugned show cause notice. Therefore, in the absence of the plea oflack of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent, I am not inclined toentertain this writ petition, at this stage. The writ petition is thereforedismissed.
Though the petitioner claims that she has already made arepresentation, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondentdenied the same. The respondent is directed to pass final orders onthe impugned show cause notice after considering the explanation, ifany filed by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner isaggrieved by the order that may be passed by the respondent, sheshall be free to avail appropriate legal remedy to question such order.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 36878
of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
28.12.2007
kvni