Gurram Prabhakar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 370 Tel

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
                  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
                                    W.A.No.79 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant; Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Government

Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development

representing respondent No.1; and Ms. D.Madhavi,                                   learned

Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development

Authority (HMDA) representing respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.12.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.46670

of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.

3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition seeking the

following reliefs:

"....to issue writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus (i) declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondent No.2 in attempting to release the final layout in pursuance of L.P.No.000192/LO/Plg/ ::2::

HMD/ 2021 dated 17.04.2021 without considering the objections raised by the petitioner through notice dated 28.11.2022 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against Section 22 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 and

(ii) Consequently direct respondent No.2 not to release the final layout in pursuance of L.P. No.000192/LO/Plg/HMD/2021 dated 17.04.2021 without considering the objections raised by the petitioner vide notice dated 28/11/2022 and ...."

4. It was contended before the learned Single Judge by the

appellant that he had issued a legal notice to HMDA on 28.11.2022

not to release the final lay out following the draft lay out

dated 17.04.2021 without considering the objections raised by him.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for HMDA submitted before the

learned Single Judge that the writ petition so filed was premature

inasmuch as final layout was yet to be issued; appellant had not

challenged the draft lay out.

6. Accepting the submission of learned Standing Counsel,

learned Single Judge took the view that there was no cause of ::3::

action for the writ court to intervene at this stage; appellant would

be at liberty to question any order that may be passed by the

HMDA.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the

aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge has been misconstrued

by the HMDA and its officials by stating before the appellant that

there is no bar to HMDA from issuing the final lay out which can

only thereafter be challenged by the appellant.

8. As already noted above, HMDA had issued the draft lay out

on 17.04.2021. Appellant had issued legal notice 1½ years

thereafter not questioning the draft lay out but calling upon

HMDA not to issue the final lay out.

9. HMDA is a statutory authority and it would be too

presumptuous to take a view that a statutory authority would not

consider all the relevant factors while issuing final lay out. Even if

thereafter anybody is aggrieved by the same, certainly the aggrieved

person would be entitled to avail his legal remedy. Writ jurisdiction ::4::

cannot be invoked to injunct a statutory authority from performing

its statutory duty. We find no merit in the appeal.

10. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 27.01.2023 LUR