Telangana High Court
Omer Hussain Barzaiq vs The State Of Telangana on 27 October, 2022
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.29240 of 2021
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" ... to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, one more
particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action
of the respondent No.3 in canceling the permission granted to the
petitioner vide proceeding No.Lr.G1/0039/2021, dated 10.11.2021 as
illegal, arbitrary, un‐ reasonable unconstitutional, in breach of
principles of natural justice and set‐aside the same and consequently
direct the Respondent No.3 not to demolish the compound wall and
two rooms constructed by the petitioner after obtaining the
permission ..."
2. Sri Mohd. Imran Khan, learned senior counsel, representing
Sri Govind Reddy Kontham, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that the 3rd respondent has issued a show-cause notice to the
petitioner on 18.10.2021 to show-cause why the building permission
should not be cancelled/revoked within 7 days, as the petitioner has
suppressed the pending A.S.No.45 of 2019 before the Principal
District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Learned senior counsel submits
that thereafter the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply stating that
the vendor of the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction against the
unofficial respondents and the said suit was decreed and thereafter,
they preferred an appeal and in the said appeal, the judgment and
decree of the Court below was suspended. Questioning that, they filed
a C.R.P. and the said C.R.P. was disposed of and the appeal is pending
adjudication. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner has
purchased the property on 17.01.2020 and the appeal itself is of the
year 2019. As the petitioner is not aware of the pending appeal, it
cannot be said that the petitioner by suppressing the fact has obtained
the permission. He submits that thereafter the order impugned dated
10.11.2021 came to be passed solely on the ground that
W.P.No.26335 of 2021 and W.P.No.26539 of 2021 are pending before
this Court. Hence, the 3rd respondent has directed the petitioner to
stop the work and maintain status quo till further orders issued by the
Municipality and cancelled the permission. It is also stated in the
impugned order that it will be re-examined after the final judgment
received from the High Court. He submits that W.P.No.26335 of
2021 is filed by the 4th respondent herein seeking a direction to
dispose of the representation filed by him, whereas as W.P.No.26539
of 2021 was disposed of by this Court on 17.08.2022 with a direction
to the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the 5th
respondent herein dated 11.10.2021. As relief that is sought in
W.P.No.26539 of 2021 seeking to consider the representation which
was basing on the submission made by the learned standing counsel
and that already his representation was disposed of and the order
which is impugned in this writ petition is passed. Learned senior
counsel submits that basing on these grounds the Municipal
Commissioner cannot revoke the permission. The only power vested
with the Municipal Commissioner is to revoke the building permission
is under Section 176(9) of the GHMC Act. It is submitted that
nothing has been stated either in the show-cause notice or in the order
impugned that how the pending litigation amounts to suppression of
facts. When the petitioner has categorically mentioned that he has no
knowledge about the said pending suit and the petitioner is not a party
to the said suit, it cannot be said the petitioner suppressing the fact has
obtained the building permission.
3. Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the unofficial
respondents, submits that under Section 176(9) of the GHMC Act, if
the permission is obtained by suppression or mis-representation of
facts, the Commissioner has the authority to cancel the permission.
He submits that the petitioner has suppressed pendency of the suit and
obtained the building permission. Hence, the 3rd respondent has
rightly cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner.
4. Sri Ch.Jagannatha Rao, learned standing counsel, submits that
he will come up with a detailed counter-affidavit.
5. On the fact of it, the order impugned dated 10.11.2021 is
unsustainable. Because, the building permission of the petitioner is
revoked solely on the ground of pending writ petitions and that cannot
be a ground available to the respondent Municipality to cancel the
building permission. In that view of the matter, the order dated
10.11.2021 is set aside and the 3rd respondent shall issue a notice to
the petitioner and should also examine on the aspect whether in the
application filed for building permission there is any requirement to
disclose the pending litigation cases in the light of Section 176(8) of
the GHMC Act. After considering explanation of the petitioner, the
3rd respondent shall pass appropriate orders. Till such time, the
respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner's building as well as
the petitioner shall not carry out any construction till the final orders
are passed. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
October 27, 2022
mar
