SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Telangana) 391

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J.
B. Chandra Reddy and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 463 of 2021
Decided On : 06-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: B. Mayur Reddy.

The importance of affording an opportunity of hearing and following the principles of natural justice before taking coercive steps against individuals.

Headnote:

Unauthorized Sheds - Municipal Notice - The court directed the petitioners to submit their explanation to the impugned notice and stated that it shall be treated as a show cause notice. The official respondents were instructed to consider the explanation and pass necessary orders strictly on merits, in accordance with law, after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. Coercive steps against the petitioners were prohibited until final orders were passed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were aggrieved by a notice issued by the Municipality directing them to remove unauthorized sheds within three days. They contended that the notice was issued without affording them an opportunity of hearing and was contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and principles of natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the petitioners to submit their explanation to the impugned notice, which was to be treated as a show cause notice. It instructed the official respondents to consider the explanation and pass necessary orders strictly on merits, in accordance with law, after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. Coercive steps against the petitioners were prohibited until final orders were passed.

Issues: The main issue was the validity of the notice issued by the Municipality directing the petitioners to remove unauthorized sheds without affording them an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: The impugned notice was to be treated as a show cause notice, and the official respondents were instructed to consider the petitioners' explanation and pass necessary orders strictly on merits, in accordance with law, after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and coercive steps against the petitioners were prohibited until final orders were passed.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No. 1 and Sri N. Praveen Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for Municipality for respondent No. 2. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

2. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the notice dated 30.12.2020 issued by respondent No. 2 directing the petitioners to remove the unauthorized sheds within three days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that without issuing any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, respondent No. 2-the Commissioner, Vikarabad Municipality, has straightaway issued the impugned notice directing the petitioners to remove the structures, which is contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and principles of natural justice, and therefore, prays to set aside the impugned notice.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2-Municipality states that the petitioners may be directed to submit their explanation to the impugned notice and the same will be considered in accordance with law.

5. In view of the fact that the impugned notice has been issued without putting the petitioners on notice and calling for their explanation, the impugned notice shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioners shall submit their explanation to the impugned notice raising their objections, which they deem fit, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such explanation, the official respondents shall consider the same and pass necessary orders strictly on merits, in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that before passing any orders, the petitioners shall be given an opportunity of hearing. A copy of the order passed by respondent No. 2 shall be communicated to the petitioners. Till such time the final orders are passed, the official respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners.

6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

7. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top