D.M. Harinath v. The State Of Telangana
[ 3166 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF N/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 6321 OF 2024 Between:
D.M. Harinath, S/o. Late D. Mallikarjun, Aged 72 Years, Occ.Business, Residing at D.No.1 -1-380/30/2, Ashok Nagar Extension, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by it's Principal Secretary, Itrlunicipal Administration Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.
The Deputy Commissioner, Circle-15, Musheerabad, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad.
4. The Assistant City Planner, Circle-15, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad.
5. The Director Enforcement Vigilance and Disaster fVlanagement, GHMC, Office at 6th and 7th Floor, Buddha Bhavan, Hyderabad-500003.
6. B. Mahesh Kumar, S/o. Not known to the petitioner, Aged 43 Years, Occ. Business, Mis. Eternal Group Builders, H.No.1-1-380/39/1 , Ashok Nagar Extension, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad.
7- Aenugula Vinay Kumar, Ex-Corporater), S/o Not known to the petitioner, Aged Major, Occ. Business, Flat No. 126, Block No.3, Janapriya Abode, H.No.1-4945 to 950, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus declaring the impugned notice No. 10185/DlR.i EVDI\{|EIGHMC|2024 dated 02.03.2024 issued by Sth respondent, pending consideration of the
petitioners case before the 3rd respondent in pursuance of the order dated O2.o2.2O24 passed in W.P.No. 2477 of 2024, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of naturaljustice and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 I t ;
i Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take action against the illegal construction a undertaken by the 6th respondent by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 21.1 0.2023 and 1 1.12.2023.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned notice No.10185/ DlR./EVDIVI/E/GH!\AC12024 dated 02.03.2024 issued by 5th respondent, which is issued without considering the petitioners case before the 3rd respondent in pursuance of the order daterl O2.O2.2O24 passed in W.P.No 2477 of 2024. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SESHADRI GOALLA Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for Respondent No.2to5 : SRI K.RAVINDER REDDY, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for Respondent No.6&7 :
-- The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.6321 of 2O24 ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the impugned notice dt.O2.O3.2OZ4 issued by the 5h respondent, pending consideration of the petitioner's case before the 3d respondent, in pursuance of the order dt.02.02.2074 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2477 of 2024, as being illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, with a consequential direction by setting aside the same. 2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner through Hybrid Mode, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage. 3.
Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the /s involved in this Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition. 4.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that at an earlier point of time on the 3'd respondent authority issuing a speaking order, dt.23.01.2024,
the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, vide W.P.NI.2477 of 2024, as the said order was passed without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, dt.78.12.2023.
5.
Petitioner further contends that this Court, by taking note of the fact that the speaking order did not make a reference to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, was pleased to set aside the same, uide order dt.02.02.2024, and directed the 3'd respondent authority to pass an order afresh, by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, after granting him an opportunity of personal hearing. 6.
Petitioner further contends that, while things stood thus, the 5h respondent authority has issued the impugned show cause notice dt.02.03.2024 calling upon the petitioner to submit various documents as mentioned therein within a period of three days and that the petitioner had submitted the same to the concerned authority on 04.03.2024. 7.
Petitioner further contends that since the subject matter, pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.2477 of 2024 d1.02.02.2024, is seized by the 3'd respondent, the 5h respondent could not have exercised the jurisdiction by issuing the impugned proceeding. 8.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that since the speaking order
dt.23.01.2024 was set aside by this Court, and the matter having been remitted back to the 3d respondent authority, the same is required to be considered afresh, and it is for the said, purpose, the 5h respondent authority, who is above the 3d respondent authority in hierarchy, had issued the impugned notice dt.02.03.2024, @lling upon the petitioner to submit documents and upon considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner thereto along with the documents; and that the authority would pass an order afresh by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner.
9.
Learned Standing Counsel further submits that there is no dual jurisdiction that is being exercised by the 5h respondent as well as the 3d and it would only be one single authority, either the 3d respondent or the 5s respondent onlyl would consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dt.18.L2.2023 as well as the further information that had been called for under the impugned notice.
10. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
11. Having regard to the fact that the 5h respondent is higher in hierarchy for the discharge of duties and functions under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the said authority having issued the impugned notice in furtherance of the order of this Court in W.P.No.2477 of 2024, dt.02.02.2024, this Court is of tfle view that the
said authority should be directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice which was issued by the 3d respondent authority dt.18.12.2023, and the further information that has been called for by the 5s respondent now, under the impugned , proceeding, dt,O2.O3.2O24,and thereafter pass a speaking order, abiding by the directions given by this Court in the order dt.02.02.2024 in W.P.No.2477 of 2O24.
12. It is to be noted that there cannot be any dual exercise of jurisdiction by the 3d respondent as well as the 5h respondent and it has to be confined only to one authority and since the respondents have now indicated to this Court that it is only the 5h respondent who would deal with the subject matter, this Court is of the view that the 5h respondent should be directed to take further action in the matter by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the earlier show cause notice as well as the impugned notice.
13. Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ Petition iS disposed of. No order as to costs.
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
SD/.T.JAYASREEE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
1. The Principal Secretary, IVlunicipar Administration Department,secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana, Telangana State.
2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lvlunicipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.
C."H,* To,
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle-15, Musheerabad, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad.
4. The Assistant City Planner, Circle-15, . Greater Hyderabad Municippl Corporation, Hyderabad.
5. The Director Enforcement Vigilance and Disaster Management, GHMC, Office at 6th and 7th Floor, Buddha Bhavan, Hyderabad-500003.
6. One CC to SRI SESHADRI GOALLA, Advocate. [OPUC]
7. Two CCs to GP FOR tvlCPL ADIUN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]
8. One CC to SRI K.RAVINDER REDDY, SC FOR GHMC. [OPUC] I Two CD Copies BSK KKS ?
tI HIGH COURT DATED:1210312024 'c o '-1..
I E uty itzq d, ,,, .r'i.
/-) * ':.1::,tr;q6E ' i.
')
ORDER
WP.No.6321 ot 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS e