ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1; and Sri B.Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had approached the 2nd respondent authority by submitting an application dt.05.03.2024 seeking permission for construction of an individual residential building consisting of Stilt + 2 upper floors, along with required documents, in respect of property bearing H.No.3-19/4/L admeasuring 239 square yards in Sy.Nos.173/6 and 173/8 situated at Mallampet Village, Gandimaisamma-Dundigal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

3. Petitioner further contends that the 2nd respondent authority vide order dt.05.03.2024 had granted permission for construction of individual residential building consisting of stilt for parking + two upper floors in respect of the subject plot.

4. Petitioner further contends that without issuing any show cause notice or serving the same on the petitioner, the 2nd respondent authority has issued the impugned revocation letter dt.04.04.2024, which it is contended is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, this Writ Petition.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that the authorities on receiving the explanation from the petitioner to the show cause notice dt.21.03.2024, passed Speaking Order dt.04.04.2024, revoking the building permission granted to the petitioner by exercising powers conferred under Section 174(4) &

(10) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short ‘the Act’).

7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the aforesaid order of revocation have been served on the petitioner by uploading the same on the TS-bPASS online portal and as such the petitioner cannot claim that the said speaking order having not been served on him.

8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

9. This Court in W.P. No.9976 of 2024, dt.19.04.2024, while dealing with the similar contention had held that invocation of power conferred under Section 174(4) & (10) of the Act can only be resorted to before expiry of 21 days and after the expiry of 21 days from the date of building permission being obtained, the said permission can only be revoked under Section 176(9) of the Act.

10. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, the authorities did not choose to invoke Section 176(9) of the Act and on the other hand, invoked Sections 174(4) & (10) of the Act, which in the considered view of this Court are not correct provisions for being invoked for revoking the building permissions granted in favour of the petitioner.

11. Further, it is also to be noted that though the respondents- authorities claim to have served the order of revocation, dt.04.04.2024 on the petitioner by uploading the same on the TS-bPASS online portal, this Court in WP.No.9959 of 2024, dt.19.04.2024, while rejecting a similar submission had held that since the TS-bPASS Act, 2020 does not provide for means of service of the notice/summons/order by uploading the same on the TS-bPASS online portal, the same is required to be served by resorting to the mode of service prescribed under the respective enactments.

12. Thus, considered from any angle, the action of respondents- authorities in interfering with the ongoing construction being made by the petitioner pursuant to the building permission obtained, without following due process of law, cannot be held to be a valid exercise of power conferred under the Act.

13. Accordingly, the impugned revocation order dt.04.04.2024 is set aside and the respondents-authorities are directed not to interfere with the ongoing construction of the petitioner, except by following due process of law.

1