IMPORTANT POINT
Violation of court orders and undertakings, and non-compliance with statutory provisions can lead to contempt of court proceedings and subsequent sentencing.

JUDGMENT

1. This Contempt Case is filed complaining willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dtd. 27/10/2021 passed by this Court in W.P. No.13491 of 2021 by the respondents herein.

2. Heard Mr.B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.V.Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner herein (hereinafter called contempt petitioner) and Sri A. Kranthi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent (hereinafter called 'writ petitioner') and Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for 2nd respondent.

3. Vishwa Bharathi Educational Society represented by its President Mr. M.Ratna Reddy (hereinafter referred to as writ petitioner), filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.13491 of 2021 to declare the action of 2nd respondent/Narsingi Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, in issuing notice dtd. 27/5/2021 as illegal. This Court vide order dtd. 17/6/2021 directed respondents therein not to take any coercive steps with regard to the subject property. The said writ petition came up for hearing on 6/9/2021 and this Court, recording the undertaking given by Sri A.Kranti Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner will not make any construction in the subject property, extended the interim order till 15/9/2021. Thereafter, the said interim order was extended from time to time. The said writ petition was dismissed on 27/10/2021 by vacating the order dtd. 17/6/2021.

4. In the writ affidavit, it is the contention of the writ petitioner that it has obtained land admeasuring Ac.2-00 guntas situated in Sy.Nos. 488, 489 and 490 of Manchirevula Village, Narsingi Municipality-ORRGC Mandal (erstwhile Gandipet Mandal) Ranga Reddy District, by way of entering into lease deed bearing Doc.No.8164 of 2019 dtd. 3/7/2019. It had submitted an application dtd. 13/1/2020 along with all necessary documents to HMDA seeking permission to construct building over the leased land in order to run Educational Institutions. During the pendency of the said application, Government has imposed complete Lockdown due to Pandemic situation. After relaxing Lockdown, HMDA addressed a letter to the writ petitioner dtd. 9/9/2020 requesting the writ petitioner to pay necessary development fee and other charges amounting to Rs.47,58,179.00, to process the application of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner paid the said amount. The writ petitioner had executed a simple mortgage deed dtd. 20/11/2020 in favour of HMDA by mortgaging 5% of the total built up area. Thus, according to the writ petitioner, except release of permission everything was concluded. Therefore, petitioner has addressed a letter dtd. 20/4/2021 to the HMDA requesting it to release permission plan. Since the same is getting delayed, the writ petitioner has started construction strictly in accordance with the plan submitted for approval before the HMDA. The writ petitioner found a notice dtd. 27/5/2021 issued by HMDA, wherein, it is also mentioned about the receipt of notice dtd. 18/5/2021 earlier. Therefore, according to the writ petitioner, the said notice dtd. 27/5/2021 is illegal. Thus, the petitioner before release of permission from HMDA, started construction basing on the deemed permission.

5. Sec. 20(3) of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 (for short, the HMDA Act') mandates that the writ petitioner has to submit an intimation to the Metropolitan Commissioner informing about commencing work. This Court considering the rival submissions and also the aforesaid provision, gave a finding that the writ petitioner failed to file any document to show that it has intimated to HMDA about commencement of work about deemed provision. This Court also gave a finding that HMDA has already rejected the permission to the writ petitioner vide proceedings dtd. 27/5/2021. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot say that it has availed deemed clause under Sec. 20(3) of HMDA Act. The writ petitioner cannot blow hot and cold together