Sunka Sathaiah vs State Of Telangana

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned show cause notice dt.05.12.2023 issued for revocation of the building permit order dt.20.11.2023 without mentioning as to the false statement made by the petitioner while obtaining permission and by merely stating that a civil dispute is pending in respect of the subject site situated in Sy.No.1783 admeasuring 224.28 square yards, Konalpalli Village, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna-Sircilla District, as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short, ‘the Act’), and in violation of the principles of natural justice and also Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

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 learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the lis involved in this Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 5 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

Petitioner contends that he had obtained building permission from the 2nd respondent authority for construction of an individual residential building, vide permission dt.20.11.2023, and under section 174(2) of the Act. It is further contended that while taking steps to proceed with the construction, the 2nd respondent authority has issued the impugned show cause notice dt.05.12.2022, calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply/explanation thereto within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, as to why the building permission granted in his favour should not be revoked.

Petitioner further contended that the only ground on which the aforesaid impugned notice is issued by stating that a civil dispute is pending as regards the proposed site and the petitioner should settle ownership/title dispute over the said property in the competent Civil Court before proceeding with the construction.

Petitioner further contends that though the aforesaid notice is issued with the above ground, it is also stated therein that the petitioner had obtained building permission by making false statement and by misrepresentation of fact without mentioning as to what is the false statement or misrepresentation of fact made by the petitioner while obtaining the permission. Thus, it is contended that the impugned show cause notice is without any authority of law and jurisdiction.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner had initially obtained building permission under Section 174(2) of the Act for construction of an individual residential building in 224.28 square meters through TS-bPASS online process; and that on the authorities causing post-verification of the permission so granted, the authorities of the 2nd respondent authority noticed that there is a pending dispute with regard to the subject property before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, vide O.S.No.113 of 2022 and for the said reason, the authorities have issued the show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to offer his explanation to the shortfall as noted therein to enable the authorities to consider the same and issue work commencement letter.

Learned Standing Counsel however fairly submits that the impugned notice does not contain the details as to the false statement or the misrepresentation of fact alleged to have been made by the petitioner while obtaining the building permit order dt.20.11.2022.

Learned Standing Counsel by making the aforesaid statement submits that if this Court were to hold that the impugned show cause notice as issued is without the aforesaid details cannot be sustained, the same may be set aside and liberty may be granted to the 2nd respondent municipality to issue a fresh notice by mentioning the relevant details to enable the petitioner to offer his explanation thereto and the authorities to consider the same and take further action in the matter in accordance with law.

I have taken note of the above said contentions urged.

Having regard to the submissions made as above, since, the show cause notice as contended by the petitioner does not contain the details as to the false statement and misrepresentation of facts, alleged to have been made by the petitioner while obtaining building permission dt.20.11.2023, this Court is of the view that the said show cause notice as issued cannot be held to be validly issued for the petitioner to offer his explanation.

In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside and liberty is granted to the 2nd respondent authority to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner by bringing on record all the relevant statements made by him while obtaining permission to enable him to offer his explanation and thereafter, consider the same and take necessary action in accordance with law.

Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.