K. Sudharshan Rao vs B.V. Satyanarayana
2022 Latest Caselaw 7029 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                   WRIT APPEAL No.857 of 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard Mr. M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for

the appellant and Mr. L.Anand, learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.1.              We have also heard Mr. Pasham

Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Municipal

Administration and Urban Development Department

appearing for respondent No.2 and

Mr. M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for respondents No.3 and 4.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated

14.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing

of W.P.No.29221 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the

writ petitioner.

3. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition

complaining against the inaction of respondents No.3 and

4 i.e., Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC)

and its authorities in not considering his representation

dated 01.06.2022. The said representation was made

alleging that appellant who was arrayed as respondent

No.4 in the writ petition was carrying out construction

without obtaining any permission. Learned Standing

Counsel for GHMC had submitted that GHMC would

consider the representation of respondent No.1. On the

basis of such submission, learned Single Judge disposed of

the writ petition by directing GHMC to consider the

representation of respondent No.1 dated 01.06.2022 within

a period of six weeks after giving notice to the appellant

and other affected parties.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

respondent No.1 had filed a suit, being O.S.No.351 of

2015, on the file of learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Kukatpally, wherein appellant was arrayed as the

defendant. The suit was for perpetual injunction to

restrain the defendant (appellant herein) from making

construction without observing the western side of the

plaintiff's (respondent No.1) flat and from interfering with

the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over

the suit schedule property. By the judgment and decree

dated 22.02.2019, the suit was dismissed by holding that

plaintiff was not entitled for perpetual injunction as sought

for.

5. As a matter of fact, the civil Court held that the

building in question has common area for access to all the

owners and any modifications are taken up only after

permission of all the owners. Plaintiff has constructed the

staircase to the second floor as there are separate

staircases to each floor. Therefore, plaintiff, defendant and

others shall use the existing staircases. This was the

finding returned by the civil Court. Therefore, learned

counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single

Judge was not justified in issuing direction to the GHMC

without hearing the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner

submits that following the order dated 14.07.2022, GHMC

had issued notice to the appellant and thereafter passed a

speaking order dated 16.09.2022 directing the appellant to

remove the steel staircase within seven days.

7. We have held on more than one occasion that without

hearing the affected party, the writ Court should not issue

any direction to public authorities to consider grievances

including consideration of representation, as any such

direction of the writ Court is susceptible to

misconstruction or being misconstrued by the authorities.

It is trite law that before any order is passed by the Court

which may have a prejudicial effect on a party, the affected

parties should be heard by the Court. Obtaining orders

from the Court which on the face of it may appear

innocuous may have unforeseen consequences, as has

happened in the present case where on the basis of the

order appealed against, GHMC has passed demolition order

on 16.09.2022.

8. That being the position, we set aside the order dated

14.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.29221 of 2022 and remand the matter back to the

file of the learned Single Judge having roster to hear the

matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

appellant. Needless to say, since we have set aside the

order of the learned Single Judge, the speaking order dated

16.09.2022 would be of no legal consequence.

9. 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 27.12.2022 vs