IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.34294 of 2014 BETWEEN Gutta Shivaramakrishna.
AND ... PETITIONER Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, M.A. & U.D. Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. D. VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR M.A. & U.D MR. B.D. MAHESWARA REDDY SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner herein is a builder, who has taken up constructions in respect of Plot Nos.15/89, 7 and 14 at D.No.8-23, Ward No.8, Gudivada Municipality, Krishna District, as per the building permission granted to him.
2. While so, the third respondent under memo dated 05.09.2014 directed the second respondent to take action against the petitioner in respect of 10% of built up area handed over to the local authority and black listing of the license of the petitioner. Hence, the second respondent issued a show cause notice and speaking order dated 21.10.2014 conveying the decision of the third respondent to the petitioner and calling upon him to submit explanation within 15 days. Another show cause notice was also issued on 21.10.2014 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why he should not be asked to remove illegal constructions.
3. Questioning the said notices, the present writ petition is filed and the primary grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been given any notice and opportunity before taking the decision to place him under black list and for removal of constructions. Petitioner also seeks relief against the decision of the second respondent in taking possession of 10% of the built up area in terms of the sanction on the ground of violation of building plan.
4. After hearing the learned standing counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that the writ petition is, at the moment, premature inasmuch the petitioner has only been given a show cause notice to submit his explanation. Petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to submit his explanation to the show cause notices, if not already submitted, within one week from today. The second respondent shall, thereafter, consider the said explanation and then take appropriate decision in the matter. Pending consideration of the explanation of the petitioner and passing of appropriate orders, as directed above, the second respondent shall not take any further precipitative action against the petitioner and any such action shall be subject to orders that would be passed, as directed above.
The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 18, 2014 DSK