Talari Nagaraju, S/O Venganna v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5893 OF 2016

O R D E R

The impugned notice dated 22.02.2016 under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 leaves a lot to be desired. The said order was passed upon the show-cause notice dated 11.02.2016 issued under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the said Act and in response thereto, the petitioner submitted his two and a half page explanation on 18.02.2016. However, the impugned notice baldly dismisses the same as being 'disposed of'. There is no discussion on what had been stated by the petitioner in his explanation and how it was found to be unsatisfactory. As the authority concerned proposed to pass an order which had civil consequences, it was mandatory that the authority record reasons in detail. The impugned notice falls woefully short of the required standard.

On this short ground, the impugned notice dated 22.02.2016 is set aside. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation shall consider the petitioner's explanation afresh and pass detailed reasoned orders in the matter in accordance with law.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. No order as to costs. ______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 23rd FEBRUARY, 2016 Svv