Telangana High Court
WA/2584/2005 of Grandhi Madhava Rao (died) per LRs Vs Municipal Commissioner, on 29 December 2005
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 2584 OF 2005 Between: Grandhi Madhava Rao (died) Per LRs. … Appellants And The Municipal Commissioner, Eluru Municipality, Eluru, West Godavari District. … Respondent ::JUDGMENT:: Counsel for
HONOURABLE SRI G.S.SINGHVI
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICER.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No. 2584 OF 2005
Between:
Grandhi Madhava Rao (died)
Per LRs.
… Appellants
And
The Municipal Commissioner,Eluru Municipality, Eluru,West Godavari District.
… Respondent
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.
::JUDGMENT::
Counsel for appellants : Smt. N (P) Anjana Devi Counsel for respondent : Sri S.Nageswara Reddy Per G.S.Singhvi, C.J.
This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 11.11.2005 passed by the learnedSingle Judge whereby he dismissed writ petition No.12214 of 2000 filed by theappellants for quashing communication dated 4.7.2000 vide which Commissioner,Eluru Municipality rejected the representation of the appellants and called uponthem to remove the alleged illegal/unauthorised construction.
Ordinarily, we would have examined the points raised in the appeal in detail andthen decided whether the order under appeal suffers from an error apparentwarranting interference by the Division Bench, but the necessity of doing so hasbeen obviated because, on being told by the court that communication dated4.7.2000 is ex facie faceless and devoid of reasons, and, therefore, legallyunsustainable, learned counsel for Municipal Commissioner, Eluru Municipality,fairly stated that the competent authority would pass fresh order after consideringexplanation dated 25.6.2000 submitted by the appellants.
In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for respondent, the appeal isallowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. As a corollary, the writpetition filed by the petitioner shall stand allowed and communication dated4.7.2000 quashed with liberty to the competent authority to pass fresh order afterconsidering the explanation submitted in response to notice dated 13.6.2000.
Since the issue involving the alleged illegal or unauthorized construction made bythe appellants has remained pending for more than five years and a half and theyhave been subjected to three rounds of litigation, we deem it appropriate to direct thecompetent authority to decide the matter afresh within a maximum period of threemonths by passing a speaking order.
Needless to say that after setting aside communication dated 4.7.2000, themunicipal authorities shall not be entitled to demolish the allegedillegal/unauthorized construction made by the appellants. Of course, this directionwill operate till passing of the fresh order by the competent authority.
G.S.SINGHVI, C.J.
29.12.2005.
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.
VR