HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.29240 of 2021
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" ... to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in canceling the permission granted to the petitioner vide proceeding No.Lr.G1/0039/2021, dated 10.11.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, un‐ reasonable unconstitutional, in breach of principles of natural justice and set‐aside the same and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 not to demolish the compound wall and two rooms constructed by the petitioner after obtaining the permission ..."
2. Sri Mohd. Imran Khan, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Govind Reddy Kontham, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 3rd respondent has issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 18.10.2021 to show-cause why the building permission should not be cancelled/revoked within 7 days, as the petitioner has suppressed the pending A.S.No.45 of 2019 before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Learned senior counsel submits that thereafter the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply stating that the vendor of the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction against the unofficial respondents and the said suit was decreed and thereafter, they preferred an appeal and in the said appeal, the judgment and decree of the Court below was suspended. Questioning that, they filed 2 a C.R.P. and the said C.R.P. was disposed of and the appeal is pending adjudication. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner has purchased the property on 17.01.2020 and the appeal itself is of the year 2019. As the petitioner is not aware of the pending appeal, it cannot be said that the petitioner by suppressing the fact has obtained the permission. He submits that thereafter the order impugned dated 10.11.2021 came to be passed solely on the ground that W.P.No.26335 of 2021 and W.P.No.26539 of 2021 are pending before this Court. Hence, the 3rd respondent has directed the petitioner to stop the work and maintain status quo till further orders issued by the Municipality and cancelled the permission. It is also stated in the impugned order that it will be re-examined after the final judgment received from the High Court. He submits that W.P.No.26335 of 2021 is filed by the 4th respondent herein seeking a direction to dispose of the representation filed by him, whereas as W.P.No.26539 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court on 17.08.2022 with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the 5th respondent herein dated 11.10.2021. As relief that is sought in W.P.No.26539 of 2021 seeking to consider the representation which 3 was basing on the submission made by the learned standing counsel and that already his representation was disposed of and the order which is impugned in this writ petition is passed. Learned senior counsel submits that basing on these grounds the Municipal Commissioner cannot revoke the permission. The only power vested with the Municipal Commissioner is to revoke the building permission is under Section 176(9) of the GHMC Act. It is submitted that nothing has been stated either in the show-cause notice or in the order impugned that how the pending litigation amounts to suppression of facts. When the petitioner has categorically mentioned that he has no knowledge about the said pending suit and the petitioner is not a party to the said suit, it cannot be said the petitioner suppressing the fact has obtained the building permission.
3. Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, submits that under Section 176(9) of the GHMC Act, if the permission is obtained by suppression or mis-representation of facts, the Commissioner has the authority to cancel the permission. He submits that the petitioner has suppressed pendency of the suit and 4 obtained the building permission. Hence, the 3rd respondent has rightly cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner.
4. Sri Ch.Jagannatha Rao, learned standing counsel, submits that he will come up with a detailed counter-affidavit.
5. On the fact of it, the order impugned dated 10.11.2021 is unsustainable. Because, the building permission of the petitioner is revoked solely on the ground of pending writ petitions and that cannot be a ground available to the respondent Municipality to cancel the building permission. In that view of the matter, the order dated 10.11.2021 is set aside and the 3rd respondent shall issue a notice to the petitioner and should also examine on the aspect whether in the application filed for building permission there is any requirement to disclose the pending litigation cases in the light of Section 176(8) of the GHMC Act. After considering explanation of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent shall pass appropriate orders. Till such time, the respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner's building as well as the petitioner shall not carry out any construction till the final orders are passed. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 5 six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J October 27, 2022 mar