Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and Another vs M. Ramakrishna and Others

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—This civil revision petition is filed against order, dated 21.11.2011, in IA No. 519 of 2011 in OS No. 655 of 2009 on the file of the learned VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff in the aforementioned suit filed against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for declaration that the constructions made by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the eastern side boundary of Schedule ''B'' property without leaving proper setbacks more particularly the doors, ventilators and windows as illegal and unauthorised. At the stage of trial, respondent No. 1 filed the above mentioned I.A. for summoning the Commissioner of petitioner No. 1 to appear before the Court as a witness along with the record. A counter-affidavit was filed by the 2nd petitioner-Assistant City Planner, wherein it was categorically averred that u/s 674(g) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, the Commissioner has authorized/delegated his powers to the Assistant City Planner, Circle No. 9, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, to defend the cases in the civil Court and, therefore, it is not necessary for the Commissioner to personally come and depose. The lower Court, however, summoned the Commissioner to give evidence.

In my opinion, the approach of the lower Court cannot be appreciated at all. The purpose of summoning the Commissioner is to depose on the alleged illegal nature of the constructions raised by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. When it is brought to the notice of the Court that the Commissioner has delegated his powers to the Assistant City Planner, Circle No. 9, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, there is absolutely no justification for the lower Court to summon the Commissioner, who is the Head of the Corporation. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner nor a finding is recorded by the Court below that the information which the respondent No. 1 is seeking to elicit is within the exclusive knowledge of the Commissioner. On the contrary, the Assistant City Planner who is the officer at the lower level is expected to have better knowledge of the facts pertaining to alleged deviations in constructions.

While dealing with applications for summoning public functionaries, the Courts at the subordinate level must observe restraint. They shall display a sense of proportion without succumbing to the temptation of summoning the heads of the organizations either to create sensation or to assert their superiority. While no one call claim to be above law, at the same time the Courts should always keep in mind that time at the disposal of the high public officials is precious and need to discharge their multifarious public functions. They cannot be made to go round the Courts unless their presence is absolutely necessary.

The lower Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to keep in mind the above aspects. The order of the lower Court is modified by substituting petitioner No. 2 for petitioner No. 1 for giving evidence as witness.

The civil revision petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, interim order dated 16.12.2011 is vacated and CRPMP Nos. 7733 of 2011 and 1015 of 2012 are disposed of as infructuous.