Telangana High Court
Smt.Nenavathlalita Alias ... vs Smt. Meenakshi Bai on 16 March, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.266 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. L.Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel
for the appellants.
2. Though on 13.03.2023 we had directed that this
appeal be listed on 03.04.2023, because of extreme
urgency being urged before the Court, the hearing has
been preponed and taken up today.
3. Appellants before us were arrayed as respondents
No.6 and 7 in W.P.No.40630 of 2022 filed by respondent
No.1 as the writ petitioner.
4. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition
seeking a direction to Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation (GHMC) authorities to consider her
representations dated 10.10.2022, 12.10.2022, 25.10.2022
and 27.10.2022 filed against the alleged unauthorised
construction being carried out by the appellants at house
bearing No.2-89/1/7/4/1, Gopanpally Thanda,
Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (subject
property).
5. We find that last of the representation of respondent
No.1 is dated 27.10.2022 whereas the writ petition came to
be filed on 03.11.2022 i.e., within a span of six days.
Allegation was that the GHMC and its authorities had not
taken any action on the representations of respondent
No.1. We are afraid, a span of five to six days cannot be
said to be a reasonable period to draw any inference
against alleged inaction of statutory authority.
Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter was not brought to
the notice of the learned Single Judge.
6. Be that as it may, from a perusal of the order dated
14.11.2022, we find that a learned counsel had appeared
on behalf of the appellants and sought for time to file
vakalat. Learned Single Judge noted that already GHMC
had passed a speaking order on 21.10.2022 and also a
revised speaking order dated 21.10.2022 (sic) for removing
the UC slabs from the ground and first floors of the
construction undertaken by the appellants. Learned Single
Judge noted the submission of the learned Standing
Counsel for GHMC that though appellants were granted a
week's time by the GHMC, they did not remove the UC
slabs. In view of the same, learned Single Judge directed
the task force to take immediate action pursuant to the
revised speaking order dated 21.10.2022 (sic) within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the
said order.
7. We have held on more than one occasion that when
orders adverse to a party to the proceeding are passed by
the Court, it is necessary that the said party should be
given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing
before adverse orders are passed. Directing the task force
to take immediate action pursuant to the revised speaking
order dated 21.10.2022 (sic) is certainly an order adverse
to the appellants. When learned counsel for the appellants
had sought for time, reasonable opportunity should have
been granted by the learned Single Judge.
8. That being the position, we are of the view that
matter is required to be heard afresh by the learned Single
Judge.
9. We accordingly set aside the order passed by the
learned Single Judge dated 14.11.2022 and remand the
matter back to the file of the learned Single Judge having
roster.
10. Writ appeal is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
16.03.2023
vs
