THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.857 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. L.Anand, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.1. We have also heard Mr. Pasham
Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr. M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.29221 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.
3. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition complaining against the inaction of respondents No.3 and 4 i.e., Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) 2 and its authorities in not considering his representation dated 01.06.2022. The said representation was made alleging that appellant who was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the writ petition was carrying out construction without obtaining any permission. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC had submitted that GHMC would consider the representation of respondent No.1. On the basis of such submission, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing GHMC to consider the representation of respondent No.1 dated 01.06.2022 within a period of six weeks after giving notice to the appellant and other affected parties.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.1 had filed a suit, being O.S.No.351 of 2015, on the file of learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, wherein appellant was arrayed as the defendant. The suit was for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant (appellant herein) from making construction without observing the western side of the plaintiff's (respondent No.1) flat and from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over 3 the suit schedule property. By the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2019, the suit was dismissed by holding that plaintiff was not entitled for perpetual injunction as sought for.
5. As a matter of fact, the civil Court held that the building in question has common area for access to all the owners and any modifications are taken up only after permission of all the owners. Plaintiff has constructed the staircase to the second floor as there are separate staircases to each floor. Therefore, plaintiff, defendant and others shall use the existing staircases. This was the finding returned by the civil Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge was not justified in issuing direction to the GHMC without hearing the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner submits that following the order dated 14.07.2022, GHMC had issued notice to the appellant and thereafter passed a speaking order dated 16.09.2022 directing the appellant to remove the steel staircase within seven days. 4
7. We have held on more than one occasion that without hearing the affected party, the writ Court should not issue any direction to public authorities to consider grievances including consideration of representation, as any such direction of the writ Court is susceptible to misconstruction or being misconstrued by the authorities. It is trite law that before any order is passed by the Court which may have a prejudicial effect on a party, the affected parties should be heard by the Court. Obtaining orders from the Court which on the face of it may appear innocuous may have unforeseen consequences, as has happened in the present case where on the basis of the order appealed against, GHMC has passed demolition order on 16.09.2022.
8. That being the position, we set aside the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29221 of 2022 and remand the matter back to the file of the learned Single Judge having roster to hear the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Needless to say, since we have set aside the 5 order of the learned Single Judge, the speaking order dated 16.09.2022 would be of no legal consequence.
9. Writ appeal is accordingly allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 27.12.2022 vs