Telangana High Court
WP/28365/2008 of Dr. P.V. Gopal Krishna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 26 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28365 of 2008 Between: Dr. P.V. Gopal Krishna S/o. Late P.V. Laxmana Rao R/o.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTPRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADAWRIT PETITION NO : 28365 of 2008
Between:
Dr. P.V. Gopal Krishna S/o. Late P.V. Laxmana Rao R/o. Flat No. 201, The Legend Pulijala 3-4-871/8, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to pass an order to issue an appropriate writ, direction or ordermore particularly a writ of Mandamus to set aside the notice dated 24-12-2008 issued under Section 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,1955 as illegal, contrary to law, null and void and without jurisdiction andissue a consequential direction to the respondents to consider therepresentation of the petitioner dated 24-12-2008.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KISHORE RAI
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBANDEV.
The Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADAWRIT PETITION No.28365 of 2008
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:
1 According to the petitioner, on an application furnished by him seekingpermission to construct a housing complex, the respondent authorities,having considered the same, had given permission on 08.04.2003, and asper the sanctioned plan, which is annexed to this Writ Petition, he waspermitted to construct stilt for parking with one shop plus five floors. In thelight of the said approval, according to the petitioner, he started constructionand he also established a clinic. However, the respondent authorities on24.12.2008 issued a notice stating that the said construction is not covered bythe sanctioned plan and so directed the petitioner to remove the saidconstruction within three days, failing which, action will be initiated. The saidnotice dated 24.12.2008 is questioned in this Writ Petition.
2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standingcounsel for the second respondent Greater Hyderabad MunicipalCorporation.
3 In my considered opinion, the notice impugned in this Writ Petitioncannot be sustained for the following reasons:
4 Firstly, before issuing such a notice, the respondent authorities oughtto have issued a show cause notice as provided for under Section 452 of theHyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, pointing out the deviationsbeing made by the petitioner while constructing the building and called for anexplanation thereto. But in the instant case the respondent authorities havenot adopted that procedure.
5 Secondly, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that theconstruction being made by the petitioner is contrary to the approved plan,inasmuch as in the permission granted to the petitioner on 08.04.2003 atcolumn No.5 it is clearly stated that he is permitted to construct stilt for parkingwith one shop and five upper floors residential flats.
6 When once the respondent authorities have permitted the petitioner toconstruct a shop, now they cannot turn round and say that the saidconstruction of shop/clinic is contrary to the approved plan. The standingcounsel for the respondent Corporation states that on the complaint receivedfrom the flat owners of the very same building the said notice was issued. Itmay not be necessary for this Court to decide this issue for the reason that thepetitioner can offer a detailed explanation to the notice dated 24.12.2008issued by the respondent Corporation.
7 In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing thepetitioner to treat the notice dated 24.12.2008 as a show cause notice issuedunder Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 andoffer his explanation to it within a period of two weeks from today and therespondent authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, inaccordance with law, within a period of two weeks thereafter. Till such time,no coercive steps, such as, demolition shall be undertaken by therespondents.
---------------------26.12.2008 SRIT.G.K, J.kvsn