Telangana High Court
Smt Sharadha And Anothers vs Smt N Varalu And 8 Others on 22 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.838 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. S.S.R.Murthy, learned counsel for the
appellants; Mr. Tushar Agarwal, learned counsel for
respondents No.1 to 6 (writ petitioners); Mr. Pasham
Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Municipal
Administration & Urban Development Department
appearing for respondent No.7; and Mr. M.Dhananjay
Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.8
and 9.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated
24.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing
of W.P.No.42545 of 2022 filed by respondents No.1 to 6 as
the writ petitioners.
3. Respondents No.1 to 6 had filed the related writ
petition seeking the following relief:
"... to issue an order, direction or Writ particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the inaction on the
part of the Respondents in not considering and not acting
upon the representations of the Petitioner dated 1-11-2022, 3-
11-2022, 18-11-2022 and not taking any action on the said
representations of the Petitioners and also not
implementing the order of Status Quo dated 15-11-2022 as
illegal, arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice
and consequently direct the Respondents herein to consider
and to act upon the said representations of the Petitioners
and to take the necessary legal action on the said
representations of the Petitioner as per law in the interest of
justice and ...."
4. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that
appellants herein (respondents No.4 and 5 in the writ
petition) were making illegal construction over the subject
land, notwithstanding pendency of a civil suit, being
O.S.No.1320 of 2014, with a status quo order.
5. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by
directing respondents No.8 and 9 to consider the
representation of the writ petitioners dated 18.11.2022 and
to take action if the appellants are making illegal
construction, within a period of six weeks, clarifying that
Court did not propose to issue notice to the appellants as
respondents No.8 and 9 have been directed to give an
opportunity to the appellants.
6. Learned Single Judge had directed respondents No.8
and 9 to consider the representation of the writ petitioners
dated 18.11.2022.
7. From the material papers we find that the writ
affidavit was sworn on 22.11.2022, just four days after
submission of the representation. In our view, the same is
not at all adequate to take a view or to make an allegation
that there was inaction on the part of the official
respondents in acting upon such a representation. That
apart, to direct respondents No.8 and 9 to act on such a
representation and to take action if the appellants were
found to be making illegal construction is not justified
inasmuch as such a direction can have unforeseen
consequences, that too without hearing the affected
parties. A direction to consider representation would only
follow provided the Court is prima facie satisfied that there
is infraction of law in the construction by the appellants
and secondly that there is inaction on the part of the
official respondents in acting on the grievance made by the
objector.
8. We find that none of the above requirements were
present to enable issuance of the impugned direction.
9. For the aforesaid reason, we set aside the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 24.11.2022 and remand the
matter back to the file of the learned Single Judge having
roster to hear the writ petition afresh.
10. 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
22.12.2022
vs
