THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.23135 of 2020
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban
Development for respondent No.1, learned Standing Counsel for
GHMC for respondent No.2, learned Government Pleader for
Revenue for respondent No.3, learned Government Pleader for
Home for respondent No.4, and Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned
counsel for respondent No.5.
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner Company
being aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2020 passed in
Lr.No.1/HO/15856/2019/797 rejecting the objections raised by
the petitioner for granting building permission in favour of
respondent No.5 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-26 guntas in
survey No.29 and Acs.3-33 guntas in survey No.41 totally
admeasuring Acs.4-19 guntas at Gachibowli Village,
Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is the absolute
owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0-26 guntas in
survey No.29 and Acs.3-33 guntas in survey No.41 of Gachibowli
Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having
purchased the same under various registered sale deeds. Though
the petitioner has narrated the entire history of mode of acquisition
of title, the same are not relevant, for the present, for disposal of
the present writ petition. The main grievance of the petitioner is
that the respondent No.5 without having any valid title to the 2
subject lands, based on some created bogus documents and
without filing necessary documents like NOC, filed application
No.1/HO/15856/2019 for grant of building permission, to which
the petitioner Company filed objections on 10.03.2020 and
12.03.2020. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.2 held a
preliminary hearing on 03.08.2020 and directed the petitioner
Company and the respondent No.5 and other third parties to file
written submissions. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted its
written submissions on 19.08.2020 and 21.08.2020, and finally on
31.08.2020 arguments were heard via Google Meet. However, for
the reasons best known to them, the GHMC authorities kept the
matter pending for more than two and half months after hearing
the arguments at length and finally on 13.11.2020 the impugned
order was passed without referring to the objections or written
submissions made by the petitioner Company without properly
appreciating the documents filed by the petitioner. Hence, the
petitioner is before this Court.
This Court, on 17.12.2020, while issuing notice before
admission, has granted interim direction to the respondents not to
make or allow any constructions on the subject land, pending
disposal of the writ petition.
Respondent No.5 has filed a counter affidavit denying the
material averments made in the writ affidavit, narrating the
sources of title of respondent No. 5, and stating that after duly
verifying the prima facie title, possession and other relevant
documents, the GHMC has accorded building permission. It is
further averred that the impugned order has categorically 3
answered the objections raised by the writ petitioner as well as one
K.Vijaya Kumar and the also speaks of the fact that the SDC and
the LAO have issued clearance report over the title of property in
favour of respondent No.5. Further, the MSBR Committee in its
meeting held on 13.12.2019 had examined the matter in detail and
recommended the proposal subject to certain conditions. Thus,
there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Heard the parties and perused the material on record.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 13.11.2020 makes it
abundantly clear that the respondent No.2 while making a note of
the complaints received from the petitioner Company as well as
one K.Vijay Kumar, short fall letter dated 29.01.2020 and the reply
dated 04.02.2020 submitted to the said short fall letter, and the
written arguments submitted by the parties, has concluded as
under:
"In view of the above and after considering all the written arguments and documents submitted by all the parties, it is decided to reject the complaint petitions filed by Sri K. Vijay Kumar, M/s.Garg Properties Pvt., Ltd., and to issue building permission in favour of M/s. Spasht Management Consultants Private Limited duly obtaining undertaking that they will be held responsible any consequences in future."
Thus, except extracting the backdrop of the case and written
submissions/arguments of the parties, the respondent No.2 has
absolutely not assigned any reasons in support of his conclusion.
This Court as well as the Apex Court, on number of
occasions, have held that any authority/court/quasi judicial 4
authority have to necessarily give reasoning in the order passed by
them. Unless reasoning is given in the order, neither the party nor
Courts before whom the order is challenged will be in a position to
appreciate as to what has weighed with the said authority either
for dismissing or allowing the application of the petitioner. Though
the quasi judicial or administrative authority are not obligated to
give a lengthy or elaborate reasoning as in the case of Judicial
order, yet they are expected to give a reasoned order which should
be precise, concisely setting out the reason either for allowing or
dismissing the contention/application/case.
In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax
Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla
and Brothers1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
".... while exercising the power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly the judgment of courts in appeal before the higher court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order ....
.... A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but
1 (2010) 4 SCC 785 5
they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the court must reflect what weighed with the court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant."
For the afore-stated reasons and in view of the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shukla and Brothers
Case (supra), without going into the merits or demerits of the case,
the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated
13.11.2020, and the matter is remanded back to the respondent
No.2 for passing fresh orders, strictly in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to
observe that before passing any orders, the petitioner as well as
the respondent No.5 shall be put on notice and afforded an
opportunity of hearing. In case any of the parties files any
additional/ fresh material, the same shall also be taken into
consideration. A copy of the order shall be communicated to the
parties. It is also made clear any construction made by the parties
shall be subject to the final orders likely to be passed by
respondent No.2.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 29.01.2021.
sur Note:- Issue C.C. in two days.
