An administrative order passed without considering a submitted explanation, while erroneously claiming no such explanation was provided, violates the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.

ORDER

Questioning the action of the respondent No.2, Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation Circle 6, Ghatkesar Medchal-Malkajgiri District, in issuing speaking order No.G1/GTKR/MMC/05/TP/2026, dated 23.02.2026, directing the petitioners to remove the construction within 15 days in respect of the premises i.e. Pulapally Balaiah Function Hall bearing H.No.7-2/9/1, Rampally village, Nagaram Municipality, Medchal-Malkajgiri district, (subject property), without following due process of law, petitioners filed the present writ petition with a consequential prayer to direct the respondent No.2 not to interfere with the petitioner’s construction and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners claims to be absolute owners and possessors of the subject property and earlier constructed a function hall after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat vide GPR/69, dated 12.12.2012 and have been paying property tax and other legal charges regularly. Since the said function hall has become outdated and in dilapidated condition, the petitioners intended to renovate the same. On the earlier occasion on 20.11.2025, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent No.3, Nagaram Municipality, asking to stop construction and sought for explanation for which, petitioners submitted explanation on 29.11.2025. But the respondent No.2, without appreciating the said explanation dated 29.11.2025 passed the impugned speaking order dated 23.02.2026 directing the petitioners to remove the construction and wherein it was categorically stated that the petitioners did not submit explanation. Petitioners would submit that the explanation was submitted on 29.11.2025 under due acknowledgment of the respondents. Further, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order after a period of more than two months of issuance of the show cause notice and explanation. It is further submitted that after the respondent No.2 Corporation has been established by the Government, no fresh notice has been issued. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a copy of the explanation dated 29.11.2025 submitted in response to the show cause notice dated 20.11.2025 and the same has been acknowledged by the office of the respondent No.3. In the said explanation it is submitted that the function hall is in existence and running since the year 2014 and the current work is only renovation, repair, and strengthening of the existing building, which is permissible under law and does not amount to fresh construction.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the office of the respondent No.3 is merged with the office of the respondent No.2 and the explanation dated 29.11.2025, stated to have been submitted by the petitioners, will be considered and appropriate orders would be passed, in accordance with law.

5. On a perusal of the explanation dated 29.11.2025, it is clear that the said explanation was submitted in response to the show-cause notice dated 20.11.2025. However, the respondent No.2, while passing the impugned speaking order dated 23.02.2026 did not consider the explanation dated 29.11.2026 of the petitioner. More so, in the impugned speaking order it is mentioned that “….on receipt of the sho