Telangana High Court
Gurram Karunakar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 20 December, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.836 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. N.Ramesh, learned counsel for the
appellants; Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1;
Mr. M.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for
respondents No.2 and 3; and Mr. Mahadev Anyarambhatla,
learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 6.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated
11.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing
W.P.No.37852 of 2022 filed by the appellants as the writ
petitioners.
3. Appellants had filed the related writ petition seeking
the following relief:
"...to issue a writ, order or direction, more
particularly a writ of mandamus declaring the notice
issued by the 3rd respondent vide notice No.476/TPS/C-
1/LNZ/GHMC/2022 dated 21.09.2022 by directing the
petitioners to vacate the portion in ground floor of
S.S.Towers, on plot No.D2, Sy.No.315, Kamala Nagar,
Kapra, near Kapra GHMC Circle Office, Medchal
Malkajgiri District without issuing any notice and
without following any procedure contemplated under the
provisions of Municipal Corporation Act and its rules
and trying to demolish the flats which are in the
occupation of the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary,
unjust, violation of principles of natural justice, abuse of
process of law and against the provisions of Municipal
Corporation Act and the rules thereunder and set aside
the notice issued by the 3rd respondent vide notice
No.476/TPS/C-1/LNZ/GHMC/2022 dated 21.09.2022
in the interest of justice."
4. Without entering into the inter parte contentious
issues between appellants and respondents No.4 to 6, we
find that appellants had complained before the learned
Single Judge that they were not served with the show
cause notice and the speaking order. Without complying
with principles of natural justice, respondents No.2 and 3
were trying to demolish the structure erected by the
vendors of the appellants in the stilt portion. However,
learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No.2
and 3 submitted that copy of the show cause notice was
served on the appellants, though the same was denied.
5. Learned Single Judge held that no material could be
placed by the appellants to show that they had obtained
construction permission from respondents No.2 and 3.
Learned Single Judge further observed that Court had
given opportunity to the appellants to submit building
permission etc. But, the appellants failed to do so.
Therefore, learned Single Judge took the view that directing
the respondents to issue show cause notice and thereafter
to pass orders would be an empty formality. Consequently,
learned Single Judge held that there was no reason to
interfere with the impugned notice dated 21.09.2022 and
dismissed the writ petition.
6. In the course of hearing today, learned Standing
Counsel representing respondents No.2 and 3 submitted
that the show cause notice dated 13.07.2022 was pasted at
a conspicuous place of the structure. Copy of the speaking
order dated 01.09.2022 was also pasted at a conspicuous
place.
7. On a perusal of the impugned notice dated
21.09.2022, we find that respondent No.3 had noted that
appellants did not reply to the show cause notice dated
13.07.2022. Appellants further did not respond to the
speaking order dated 01.09.2022. Consequently, holding
that appellants had nothing to reply, appellants were
directed to vacate the portion in the ground floor of the
subject property within fifteen days.
8. Without entering into the dispute as to whether the
show cause notice dated 13.07.2022 as well as the
speaking order dated 01.09.2022 were served upon the
appellants or not, we are of the view that it would only be
in the interest of justice if an opportunity is granted to the
appellants to respond to the show cause notice dated
13.07.2022 and the speaking order dated 01.09.2022.
9. View taken by the learned Single Judge that directing
the respondents to issue fresh notice to the appellants
would only be an empty formality, in our considered
opinion, is not the correct approach. The useless formality
theory is no longer in vogue in many jurisdictions including
ours. Principles of natural justice are the heart and soul of
administration of justice. A writ court exercising the power
of judicial review is concerned with the decision making
process and not with the decision per se.
10. Since appellants are already in possession of show
cause notice dated 13.07.2022 and speaking order dated
01.09.2022, they shall submit their response to respondent
No.3 within a period of fifteen days from today, whereafter
respondents No.2 and 3 shall pass a reasoned order in
accordance with law. Whatever decision is taken, the same
may be communicated to the appellants. We further clarify
that the observations of the learned Single Judge made in
paragraph 5 of the order dated 11.11.2022 shall not
influence the decision to be taken by respondents No.2
and 3.
11. This disposes of the writ appeal.
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
20.12.2022
vs
