Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 666 (TS)

C. R. Constructions v. Govt. of Telangana

2025-05-14

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief: “to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the speaking order No. 2067/W-141/TPS/SBZ/GHMC/2025, Dt.03/04/2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent in respect of premises bearing No.16-31 on plot No.70 and 74 admeasuring 546 Sq. Yards in Sy. No.711 situated at old Mirjalguda, Malkajgiri, to the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India by setting aside the same and pending disposal of the above Writ Petition suspend the operation of the speaking order No. 2067/W-141/TPS/SBZ/GHMC/2025, Dt.03/04/2025 Received on 08/05/2025 and pass….. .” 2. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Heard Sri M.V.Raj Kumar Gabriel, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5. 4. Brief facts of the case: The petitioner is a registered firm and doing business of construction of buildings. Accordingly, the petitioner entered into development agreement dated 08.04.2022 in respect of premises bearing No.16-31 on Plot Nos.70 and 74 admeasuring 546 sq. yards in Sy.no.711 situated at Old Mirjalguda, Malkajgiri, for construction of residential apartment. The petitioner submitted application for construction of residential apartments and accordingly the respondents have accorded building permission on 04.07.2023 for construction of stilt + 4 upper floors. The petitioner also had undertaken the construction activity. While things stood thus, on 11.03.2025, respondent No.3 had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner stating that multiple kitchen flats are constructed on each floor and the petitioner deviated the sanctioned approved plan. On 23.01.2025, the partner of the petitioner firm, suffered severe cardiac arrest and subsequently suffered brain stroke and he was hospitalized in Care Hospital, Musheerabad. Due to the same, the petitioner could not submit the explanation to the show-cause notice dated 11.03.2025 and requested the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to grant time. Without considering the said submission, respondent No.3 issued impugned speaking order for removal of unauthorized construction within a period of 15 days. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 5. Due to the same, the petitioner could not submit the explanation to the show-cause notice dated 11.03.2025 and requested the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to grant time. Without considering the said submission, respondent No.3 issued impugned speaking order for removal of unauthorized construction within a period of 15 days. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is making construction as per the sanctioned approved plan and it is not making any unauthorized construction. He further submitted that due to his ill-health of its partner, the petitioner could not submit explanation to the show-cause notice dated 11.03.2025 issued by respondent No.3. Though the petitioner requested the respondent No.3 to grant reasonable time to submit explanation to the show-cause notice, without considering the same, the respondent No.3 issued the impugned speaking order for removal of the unauthorized construction and the same is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that in spite of the notice issued by the respondent No.3 dated 11.03.2025, the petitioner has not submitted any explanation. Respondent No.3 has rightly issued the impugned speaking order for removal of the unauthorized construction. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the respondent-Corporation granted building permission on 04.07.2023 for construction of stilt + 4 upper floors in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.3 had issued show-cause notice on 11.03.2025 pointing out that the petitioner is making construction of multiple kitchen flats on each floor and also making unauthorized constructions. The record further reveals that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation pursuant to the said show-cause notice. The petitioner specifically averred in the affidavit that on 23.01.2025, its partner suffered with severe cardiac arrest and subsequently brain stroke and he was hospitalized and due to the same, the petitioner could not submit the explanation. To support the above said averment, the petitioner filed the medical reports. The respondent-Corporation issued the impugned proceedings directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction within a period of (15) days. 8. It is already stated supra that the petitioner could not submit the explanation due to ill-health of its partner. To support the above said averment, the petitioner filed the medical reports. The respondent-Corporation issued the impugned proceedings directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction within a period of (15) days. 8. It is already stated supra that the petitioner could not submit the explanation due to ill-health of its partner. To render substantial justice to the parties, this Court is of the considered view that one opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to defend its case by submitting its explanation to the show cause notice issued by the respondent No.3. 9. Hence, the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed by respondent No.3 is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to submit explanation to the show-cause notice dated 11.03.2025 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such explanation, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three (2) weeks from thereafter. Till such time, the respondent-Corporation shall not take any coercive steps in respect of the subject property. It is needless to observe that the petitioner also shall not make any further construction in the meantime. 10. With the above said directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.