Telangana High Court
Mohammed Ilyas Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 15 March, 2022
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.13289 of 2022
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the
3rd respondent - Corporation in issuing the 'Reasoned Order' No.
01/HN/H&S/C11/GHMC/2022, dated 08.03.2022 directing to
close / shift the business of the petitioner from the premises
within seven days failing which it will be closed and sealed
departmentally, duly disconnecting the electricity power supply to
the premises.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been running
the business in the name and style of 'New Royal Traders'. While
so, on 10.01.2022, the 3rd respondent issued the notice for closure
of business alleging that it is in violation of G.O.Ms.No. 33, dated
24.01.2013 and again on 24.01.2022, the 3rd respondent issued
the notice for hearing. The petitioner is stated to have appeared
before the Authority and submitted that his business is not in
violation of the said G.O. and no chemicals are involved in the
business. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the said
explanation, the impugned order was passed stating that even
after lapse of more than one month, the petitioner has neither
submitted the statement nor attended the office.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Asadulla Shareef
submits that though the petitioner appeared before the officers and
submitted the relevant documents in support of his case, the same
were not considered and the impugned order came to be passed on
08.03.2022 directing the petitioner to close the business.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation
Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy submits that in the light of the order
passed by the Division Bench in PIL No. 398 of 2012, GHMC is
taking steps for issuing notices and following due procedure to
shift out the illegal trade/business operations in residential area
and thereby safeguarding the basic right to stay safe in residential
colony. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have issued
notices and as the petitioner failed to respond to the same and as
the business that is run by the petitioner is hazardous to the
residents, the impugned order came to the passed. He submits
that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondents
on 08.03.2022, hence, the same does not warrant interference by
this Court.
5. The impugned order dated 08.03.2022 which is styled
as 'reasoned order' at the first para, states that "in pursuance of
this office show cause notice reference 3rd cited, the hearing has
been conducted duly providing sufficient time for submission of
reply. The reply submitted by you is examined carefully and it is
observed that the statement made by the owner/occupier/agent
that the running of Trade/Business activity is not permissible under
Residential use zone and the reply/statement submitted by the
party is rejected for the following reasons". In the next two
paragraphs, it is stated about G.O.Ms.No. 33 and the judgment of
the Hon'ble Division Bench in PIL No. 398 of 2012. Then the 4th
paragraph reads as "Further, as per the statement of hearing to
grant a period of 20 days for submitting statement regarding
running of Trade at Hussan Nagar vide reference 5th cited. But even
after elapse of more than one month you have neither submitted the
statement nor attended this office." The reasoning given by the
respondents in the first paragraph runs contrary to the 4th para
which will support the case of the petitioner that he submitted the
explanation and appeared before the authorities.
6. Learned Standing Counsel tried to submit that the
impugned order is the reasoned order and it speaks about the
reasons stated therein. Any order passed should be self-
explanatory and by way of arguments or interpretation, nothing
can be supplemented or supplanted. As this order does not give
proper reasons and the reasons given in one para run contrary to
the other, the interim order is liable to set aside.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed, setting aside
the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent - Deputy
Commissioner. The petitioner shall treat the notice dated
10.01.2022 as the show cause notice and submit his explanation
within two days from today and the respondents shall give the
petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders
thereon within a period of one week thereafter. There shall be no
order as to costs.
8. The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand
closed.
----------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
15th March 2022
ksld
