Telangana High Court
Sri. V.Y. Jaswanth Kumar, vs The State Of Telangana, on 8 April, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.8817 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to
declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not considering the
representations/complaints dt.30.01.2024 and 27.03.2024 submitted by
the petitioner and not discharging their statutory duties for taking action
against the illegal and unauthorized construction made by the 4th
respondent at H.No.12-2-876/3,4, Asifnagar, Hyderabad, as being illegal,
arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the GHMC Act,
1955.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner through Hybrid Mode,
learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban
Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri K.Siddharth Rao,
learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and with
the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ
Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.
3. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the
admission stage and the lis involved in this Writ Petition, this Court is of
the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5 is not necessary
for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is
that the unofficial respondents without any permission from respondent
Nos.2 and 3 have commenced the construction of an illegal structure
without following the building rules.
5. Petitioner further contends that on the unofficial respondents
commencing construction of a residential house, he had approached the
respondents-authorities and submitted several complaints dt.30.01.2024
and 27.03.2024 bringing to the notice of the respondents-authorities the
illegal and unauthorized construction being made by the unofficial
respondents and sought for initiation of action for the removal of the said
construction in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
6. Petitioner further contends that in spite of the petitioner bringing to
the notice of the respondents-authorities of the unauthorized and illegal
construction being made by the unofficial respondents, no action is taken,
while the authorities are bestowed with powers to cause inspection and
also take steps to bring down/remove any unauthorized and illegal
construction that is being made by exercising powers conferred on them
under the Act.
7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the unofficial respondents have
obtained building permission for construction of stilt + two upper floors,
but however, had constructed two additional floors i.e. 3rd and 4th floors
over the building.
8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that even before the
petitioner approaching the respondents-authorities and submitting
representations, the authorities in exercise of powers conferred on them
under the Act have caused inspection and noticed the said unauthorized
and illegal construction being made by the unofficial respondents and
accordingly, issued a show cause notice dt.30.12.2023 calling upon the
unofficial respondents to submit an explanation as to why action should
not be initiated against the construction being made in deviation of the
sanction plan.
9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that as the unofficial
respondents did not submit any explanation, the authorities have passed a
Speaking Order dt.18.01.2024, whereby the construction of additional two
floors was held to be unauthorized and illegal, warranting action for
removal/demolition of the same under the Act.
10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that on the respondents-
authorities passing the aforesaid Speaking Order, the unofficial
respondents have approached the Court of Civil jurisdiction by filing a suit
vide O.S.No.433 of 2024 and obtained an order of status quo in
I.A.No.248 of 2024 on 02.02.2024 on the file of the IV Junior Civil Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
11. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that even before the
respondents-authorities initiating steps for enforcing the Speaking Order,
the above mentioned order of status quo was passed by the Court of Civil
jurisdiction and that the respondents-authorities are taking steps to file
counter/written statement to get the order of status quo vacated, for
them to take further action on the Speaking Order passed.
12. Learned Standing Counsel thus submits that it is on account of the
order of status quo passed by the Court of Civil jurisdiction, the authorities
could not take further steps for enforcing the Speaking Order
dt.18.01.2024, and assures this Court that the authorities would take all
the relevant measures in an expeditious manner for getting the order of
status quo vacated.
13. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
14. Though the petitioner had alleged that the unofficial respondents
are making unauthorized and illegal construction and inaction on the part
of the respondents-authorities in dealing with such unauthorized and
illegal construction, the facts narrated above indicate the respondents-
authorities initiating action firstly by issuing a show cause notice
dt.30.12.2023 and thereafter, secondly, by passing a Speaking Order
dt.18.01.2024 with regard to the unauthorized and illegal construction
made by the unofficial respondents.
15. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondents-authorities did not
take or initiate action on the complaint made by the petitioner. However,
it is to be noted that against the aforesaid Speaking Order passed by the
official respondents, the unofficial respondents having approached the
Court of Civil jurisdiction and obtained an order of status quo by filing a
suit, the respondents-authorities were prevented from taking steps for
enforcement of the aforesaid Speaking Order.
16. Though learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents have stated to this Court that the respondents-authorities are
taking steps to get the aforesaid order of status quo vacated, it is to be
noted that the impugned order being an order passed by the authorities in
exercise of their powers under the Act, in discharge of their statutory
functions, a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the
Civil Courts granting order of status quo/injunction against the orders
passed under the statute, particularly dealing with unauthorized and illegal
construction being interfered by passing an order of status quo, in the
case of M unicipal Corporation of Hyderabad v/ s. Philom ena
Education Foundation 1 , and the said judgment is reiterated by the High
2008 (2) ALD 1
Court by issuing Office Order, vide Circular dt.20.02.2017 in
ROC.No.7/Reg.Judl/2017, which was yet again reiterated in Circular
dt.08.11.2023 in ROC.No.14/Reg.Judl/2023, whereby Civil Courts were
directed to exercise caution while granting order of status quo .
17. Since, position of law has already been laid down by this Court in
the aforesaid judgment and as has been brought to the notice of the
Judicial Officers by the High Court by issuing circulars, this Court is of the
view that the respondents-authorities should be directed to take steps by
filing counter and vacate petition in the aforesaid suit instituted by the
unofficial respondents against the Speaking Order dt.18.01.2024 and take
steps to get the said status quo order vacated and thereafter initiate
action for enforcing the Speaking Order dt.18.01.2024 in an expeditious
manner. Petitioner is also at liberty to seek his impleadment in the
aforesaid suit and take steps to bring to the notice of the concerned Court
the legal position for vacating the order of status quo/injunction.
18. Subject to above observation and liberty, the Writ Petition is
disposed of. No order as to costs.
19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall
stand closed.
___________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:08.04.2024
GJ
