P. VENKATARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are questioning the notices dated 14-12-1992 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation (1st respondent ). The notices were purportedlyissued under Section 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. All the notices are similar in printed forms. The notice in the case of 2nd petitioner reads as follows:"municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Notice under Section 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955) sl. No. 59 original Book No. 206. Date: 14-12-92. To sri Vijaya Shanker Goenka plot 234 - R. No. 36. Whereas it is noticed that the erection/re-erection of the Building/ execution of the works as detailed below have been unlawfully commenced/ is being unlawfully carried on by you upon Premises No. Plot No. 234 situated at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad you are hereby directed to stop the said construction work forthwith as the same is carried on without seeking permission as required u/s. 428/ contrary to the sanction plan/contrary to the provisions contained in Sections 441,442,443,444, 445,446,447, commenced after expiry of the period of the year specified in Sections 427 and 428 of the H. M. C. Act, 1955. 1. Unauthorised shop - without permission. 2. Remove it immediately. Take notice that if the said work is not stopped forwith, such steps as may be necessary to stop the said work shall be taken including the removal of yourself and agent with the help of Police from the said premises and prevent your entry upon the said premises. The costs any measure taken, as above shall have to be paid by you. Sd. . . . . 14/12. Commissioner Municipal corporation of Hyderabad". In the case of the 5th petitioner, the nature of violation is noted as Unauthorised garage ; in the case of the 7th respondent, it is mentioned as unauthorised functioning of shop including fresh vegetable stall ; in the case of the 1st petitioner, the violation is mentioned as "unauthorised cement sheets".

( 2 ) THE first thing to be noticed is that Section 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act has no application here. The work has already been executed and the unauthorised garage or shop has already been built up. The question of stopping the work as directed in the notice does not really arise in this case. The learned standing Counsel for for the Corporation, Mr. Pratap Reddy has not seriously disputed this position. The second infirmity in the notices is that the exact nature of violation and the Section, Rule or Bye-law which has been contravened is not spelt out in the impugned notices. The inapplicable sections or portions in the printed proforma have not been struck off. The result is that the notices are couched in vaguest terms. A bald description - unauthorised shop or unauthorised garage or unauthorised cement shop does not indicate with reasonable certainty what exactly the allegation is against the petitioners and how and why it is unauthorised. The particular Section, Rule or Bye-law Which has been violated or under which action is proposed to be taken has not been clearly indicated. The reference has been made to a dozen sections many of which are wholly inapplicable. In the counter, yet other Sections, namely (not clear) have been mentioned. Thus, the notices have been issued in a very casual and mechanical manner without application of mind to the legal requirement. Though the need to curb unauthorised constructions or unauthorised uses need not be over-emphasised, at the same time, the Municipal authorities should bestow sufficient care and attention while issuing the notices or before taking drastic action against errant persons. The show cause notice under the relevant provision specifying the nature and details of violation and the action proposed to be taken shall precede the final order that may be passed under the relevant provisions of law. These are the essential requirements of the principles of natural justice. Unless there is strict or substantial compli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document