Judicial intervention is justified when administrative bodies delay the processing of applications, violating statutory requirements for timely decision-making.

ORDER:

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondent authorities in not passing any orders on the representation dated 17.11.2014 submitted by the petitioner for approval of revised plan, as being illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the Plot bearing No.48, admeasuring 300 Sq.Yards forming part and parcel of land in Sy.No.447/A, Vignanpuri Colony, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same by virtue of registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.3402 of 1999, dated 25.03.1989. The petitioner obtained permission for construction of Stilt plus 3 upper floors vide permit No.26146/DC/WZ/Cir-14/2014 in File No.48001/2003/06/ 2013/C-14, dated 17.07.2014. Later, petitioner applied for revised permission for construction of 4^th floor and the same was pending. Meanwhile, the petitioner completed construction of 4^th floor and the respondents issued notice dated 19.09.2014 under Section 452(1) and 461(1) of the HMC Act, 1955, asking the petitioner to submit reply within seven days from the date of receipt of notice. However, the said notice was served on the petitioner on 16.10.2014 and the petitioner submitted explanation on 24.10.2014. Meanwhile, respondent No.3 affixed notice dated 06.10.2014 under Section 452(2) of the HMC Act on 21.10.2014 alleging that the petitioner has not submitted explanation to the earlier notice dated 19.09.2014.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner submitted representation dated 17.11.2014 with a request to grant permission for 4th floor and to issue revised plan along with requisite amount and that the said representation is pending consideration. While the matter stood thus, the respondent authorities came to the subject property on 25.11.2014 and tried to demolish the subject property. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Government has come up with a scheme for regularisation of unauthorised constructions under G.O.Ms.No.152, 02.11.2015; and that subsequent to filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner herein has submitted three applications for regularization of unauthorized construction vide application Nos.2000033787, 2000033781 and 2000033795 under G.O.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015 and the said applications are pending. Therefore, learned counsel prayed that appropriate directions be given to respondents to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner for regularisation as per GO.Ms.No.152.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent-GHMC submitted that the State Government has issued GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015 for regularization of unauthorized constructions made in deviation of sanctioned plan and the said GO was challenged in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2016, wherein a Division Bench of this Court vide interim order dated 18.10.2016 directed GHMC/respective Municipal Corporations to decide the applications for regularization and if the applications for regularization are rejected, to take further action for demolition of illegal structures in accordance with law. He further submitted that insofar as applications where the GHMC or the other Municipal Corporations, tentatively decide to regularize the illegal structures, such a decision shall merely be recorded in the file, and shall neither be given effect to nor shall it be communicat