Telangana High Court
WP/27877/2009 of T. Swarna Latha Vs The Commissioner on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.27877 of 2009 Between: T.Swarna Latha ... PETITIONER(S) and The Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal. …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THIS THE 29[th] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009
W.P.No.27877 of 2009
Between:
T.Swarna Latha
and
... PETITIONER(S)
The Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal.
…RESPONDENT(S)
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYW.P.No.27877 of 2009
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.
ORDER:
Petitioner submitted an application to the respondent-Corporation on 12.06.2009 seeking permission to construct a houseon premises bearing no.9-3-89, Girmajipet, Warangal, and a sum ofRs.45,125/- was deposited under various heads in that regard. Through a Memo dated 25.07.2009 the respondent-Corporationrejected the application of the petitioner by stating the following threereasons.
(1) The applicant has not submitted the required link documents.
(2) There are two tiled houses constructed by others 20 years backin which site the applicant (petitioner herein) going to makeconstruction.in which site the applicant (petitioner herein) going to makeconstruction.
(3) The applicant has not fixed the boundary stones to identify thesite. Petitioner challenges the said memo contending that hada notice been issued to her she would have shown thedocuments, boundaries etc., and satisfy the respondents in allrespects. site. Petitioner challenges the said memo contending that hada notice been issued to her she would have shown thedocuments, boundaries etc., and satisfy the respondents in allrespects.
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learnedStanding Counsel for Warangal Municipal Corporation.
The respondent-Corporation has processed the applicationsubmitted by the petitioner and it appears that a local inspection wascaused and certain features were noticed and incorporating the same,the respondent-Corporation has passed the impugned memo. Beforethe respondent-Corporation forms an opinion, on various aspects, itought to have issued a notice to the petitioner or sought clarificationfrom her. The opinion formed by the respondent-Corporation withouthearing the petitioner cannot constitute the basis for rejection of herapplication. Therefore, the impugned memo is liable to be set asideon this short ground.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The petitioner shalltreat the impugned memo as a show cause notice to her and she shallbe entitled to submit the relevant documents and offer her explanationon the three aspects referred to above, within a period of fifteen (15)days from today. The respondent-Corporation shall take the same intoaccount and pass appropriate orders thereon under communication tothe petitioner.
There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
29[th] December 2009CVRK
Note: Office to issuecopy within one week. B/o CVRK