Telangana High Court
WP/23595/2004 of Fribzi Datta Sri Constructions Pvt., Ltd., Vs The Director General of Fire Services, on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23595 of 2004 Between: Fribzi Datta Sri Constructions Pvt., Ltd., rep.by its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 23595 of 2004
Between:
Fribzi Datta Sri Constructions Pvt., Ltd., rep.by its Director Sri ManchalaRavindra, Flat No.204, S.V.'s Meera Mansion, 7-1-79, Dharam Karam Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONER
AND
The Director General of Fire Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto issue an appropriate writ / Direction or order preferably a writ in the nature ofwrit of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in refusing to refundthe amount of Rs.91,732/- vide Respondent's Letter No.RC.No.7747/B1/2003,dated 04-06-2004 as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent to pay thesum of Rs.91,732/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit tillrepayment of the same to the petitioner along with costs of this petition andpass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SRINATH
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME
The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:
Petitioner intended to construct a multi-storied building complex in the premisesbearing No.8-3-676 and 8-3-676/1/A of Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad. For thatpurpose, it submitted an application before the Municipal Corporation ofHyderabad. In accordance with the provisions of the Multi-storied BuildingRegulations, 1981 (for short ‘the Regulations’), it also submitted an applicationto the respondent for issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ (‘NOC’). A sum ofRs.91,732/- was paid as Fire Precaution Fund for obtaining the ‘NOC’.
The respondent addressed a letter dated 21.10.2003 to the MunicipalCorporation of Hyderabad stating, inter alia, that on completion of the buildingand before occupation, the petitioner should intimate him for inspection and a‘NOC’ would be issued thereafter. It is stated that the Municipal Corporationrejected the application submitted by the petitioner and in that view of thematter the necessity to obtain any ‘NOC’ from the respondent did not subsist. Itsubmitted a report dated 20.05.2004 seeking refund of the Fire Precaution Fundpaid by it. Through order dated 04.06.2004, the respondent refused to refundthe same saying that the request is made at a belated stage. Hence, this writpetition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader forHome.
The petitioner submitted an application to the respondent for issuance of a‘NOC’, as required under the Regulations. A sum of Rs.91,732/- was paid as Fire Precaution Fund. The application was processed by the respondent and heintimated the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, throughproceedings dated 21.10.2003 that ‘NOC’ would be issued to the petitioner aftercompletion of the building and before occupation. From this, it is evident thatthe ‘NOC’ was to have been issued by the respondent only after theconstruction of the building is completed. The construction, in turn, could havebeen undertaken only if it was permitted by the Municipal Corporation.
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.
Conclusion
The petitioner states that the Municipal Corporation rejected the application forsanction of proposed construction and thereby it did not construct the building.Once it is evident that the building was not constructed, the necessity forissuance of the ‘NOC’ by the respondent did not subsist. The payment of fee bythe petitioner was to provide the necessary fire service in the event of anymishap occurring in the building that was proposed to be constructed. When thebuilding itself did not ensue and exist, the question of the respondent requiringto render any service to the same, does not arise. At any rate, the ‘NOC’ wasnot issued to the petitioner. It should not be forgotten that the respondent is notundertaking any trade or business. Strictly speaking, the services to beprovided by him are as part of the social obligation of the State. All the same,he may be entitled to collect the fee for rendering any specialized service tomulti-storied buildings. When the building did not come up or exist, there doesnot exist any justification for the respondent to withhold that amount.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent isdirected to refund the amount of Rs.91,732/- paid by the petitioner towards FirePrecaution Fund within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
-----------------------
30.12.2004
ksld
To
1. The Director General of Fire Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.2. Two CCs. to the G.P. for Home, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT)3. Two CD copies.2. Two CCs. to the G.P. for Home, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT)3. Two CD copies.