WP/29164/2009 of Dr. Chinta Shyam Kumar Vs Vijayawada Municipal Corporation on 31 December 2009

Order:

In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the demand made bythe respondent-Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, vide proceedings bearingNo.Rc.G.BPS.No.1509/2008, dated 26-09-2009, demanding an amount ofRs.6,63,280/-, towards penalization charges, for regularization/penalization ofthe building constructed by them in deviation to the sanctioned plan.

2. It is the case of the petitioners, wife and husband and Doctors byprofession, that they are the owners and possessors of the building bearingDoor No.29-8-44, situated at Chiluku Durgaiah Street, Suryaraopet,Vijayawada. On the ground that constructions made by them are indeviation to the sanctioned plan, the petitioners have applied forregularization/penalization of such constructions by remitting an amount ofRs.65,000/- vide application No.BPS-1509/2008. The grievance of thepetitioners is that though the respondent-Corporation ought to havecalculated the penal charges by applying the rates as applicable toresidential buildings, but, on the ground that they are running a hospital/clinicin a part of the building, by calculating penal charges at the rates which areapplicable to commercial buildings, the respondent-Corporation demandedan amount of Rs.6,63,280/- which, according to them, is not correct and theyare not liable to pay the said amount. On receipt of the impugned demand, itis stated that the petitioners have submitted a detailed representation dated12-10-2009, disputing such demand.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. G. Jhansi, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of therespondent-Corporation.

4. From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition, it appears, the dispute is only with regard to quantum of penalizationamount payable by the petitioners for regularization of the buildingconstructed by them in deviation to the sanctioned plan. The impugneddemand is made pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioners, byapplying the rates as applicable to commercial buildings. As much as thepetitioners have already submitted a representation, after receipt of theimpugned demand from the respondent-Corporation, it is a matter which hasto be examined by the respondents, whether the demand made is inconformity with the rates which are notified as per the scheme for regularization of the buildings constructed in deviation to the sanctionedplan. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writpetition with the following directions:

The petitioners are permitted to file a further detailed representationwithin a period of four weeks from today giving the details of the rates whichare to be charged and the amount payable according to them forregularization of the constructions made in deviation to the sanctioned plan. On filing such representation, the competent authority of the respondent-Corporation shall examine the same, by looking into the contents of therepresentation already submitted, and the further representation, and passappropriate orders, giving the details of balance amount payable by thepetitioners. Till appropriate orders are passed and communicated to thepetitioners, no further steps shall be taken for demolition of the constructionswhich are subject matter of the application filed by the petitioners.

5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

December 31, 2009MRR

______________________

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J