Dudam Roja Rani, v. The State Of Telangana, Rep By Its Principal Secretary

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.43569 OF 2016 Dated:16.12.2016 Between:

Dudam Roja Rani, W/o. Srinivas, Aged 39 years, R/o.4-4-203, Near Kaman, Main Road, Peddapalli, Telangana State .. Petitioner AND The State of Telangana , rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.43569 OF 2016 ORDER:

Heard. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2.

The petitioner alleges that valid building permission was granted to her and in terms thereof, she is undertaking construction. The petitioner further states that with an ill motive, the 4th respondent filed a complaint stating that she is undertaking construction against the sanctioned plan and based on the said complaint, the Commissioner, Nagarpanchayat, Peddapalli, the 3rd respondent, issued show cause notice, dated 15.11.2016, calling upon her to submit explanation and furnish all the relevant documents in support of her claim.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even before the issue is considered, the 3rd respondent could not have suspended the permission validly granted to the petitioner and in fact she has already completed the construction. 4.

Though there is some merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, but since the show cause notice was already issued and, according to the petitioner, construction was already completed, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, as requested by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

5.

The petitioner is granted liberty to file explanation immediately to the show cause notice, dated 15.11.2016, and as soon as explanation is received from the petitioner, a notice shall also be caused on the 4th respondent and call for his reply and on consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the reply/objections by the 4th respondent, appropriate orders, as warranted in law, shall be passed by the 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such explanation. 6.

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date:16.12.2016 KH