THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.266 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. L.Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel
for the appellants.
2. Though on 13.03.2023 we had directed that this
appeal be listed on 03.04.2023, because of extreme
urgency being urged before the Court, the hearing has
been preponed and taken up today.
3. Appellants before us were arrayed as respondents
No.6 and 7 in W.P.No.40630 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.
4. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition seeking a direction to Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) authorities to consider her representations dated 10.10.2022, 12.10.2022, 25.10.2022 2 and 27.10.2022 filed against the alleged unauthorised construction being carried out by the appellants at house bearing No.2-89/1/7/4/1, Gopanpally Thanda, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (subject property).
5. We find that last of the representation of respondent No.1 is dated 27.10.2022 whereas the writ petition came to be filed on 03.11.2022 i.e., within a span of six days. Allegation was that the GHMC and its authorities had not taken any action on the representations of respondent No.1. We are afraid, a span of five to six days cannot be said to be a reasonable period to draw any inference against alleged inaction of statutory authority. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.
6. Be that as it may, from a perusal of the order dated 14.11.2022, we find that a learned counsel had appeared on behalf of the appellants and sought for time to file vakalat. Learned Single Judge noted that already GHMC 3 had passed a speaking order on 21.10.2022 and also a revised speaking order dated 21.10.2022 (sic) for removing the UC slabs from the ground and first floors of the construction undertaken by the appellants. Learned Single Judge noted the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC that though appellants were granted a week's time by the GHMC, they did not remove the UC slabs. In view of the same, learned Single Judge directed the task force to take immediate action pursuant to the revised speaking order dated 21.10.2022 (sic) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
7. We have held on more than one occasion that when orders adverse to a party to the proceeding are passed by the Court, it is necessary that the said party should be given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing before adverse orders are passed. Directing the task force to take immediate action pursuant to the revised speaking order dated 21.10.2022 (sic) is certainly an order adverse to the appellants. When learned counsel for the appellants 4 had sought for time, reasonable opportunity should have been granted by the learned Single Judge.
8. That being the position, we are of the view that matter is required to be heard afresh by the learned Single Judge.
9. We accordingly set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.11.2022 and remand the matter back to the file of the learned Single Judge having roster.
10. Writ appeal is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 16.03.2023 vs