HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.425 of 2008 DATE: 10.06.2014 Between:
Roi’s Priyanka Block Flat Owners Welfare Association, Miyapur, rep. by its Secretary ... Petitioner And The District Collector & District Magistrate Ranga Reddy District & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.425 of 2008 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2.
2. The owner of the land in Sy.No.216 of Madinaguda village, applied to the HUDA for sanction of the lay out for construction of group housing scheme, including residential flats and the same was approved by the HUDA vide Letter No.2655/MP.2/H/97 dated 19.06.1998. Thereafter, Serilingampally Municipality sanctioned the plan vide proceedings dated 10.07.1998. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the owners entered into a development agreement with builders and developers got constructed residential flats as per the approved plan. After purchase of the flats, the owners formed themselves into an association and registered the same under the provisions of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. While so, the 2nd respondent issued a notice on 23.02.2006 stating that the premises was inspected by the District Fire Officer, Warangal and found that the height of the building is 18 meters and that there were deficiencies in the matter providing mandatory open spaces, fire fighting equipment, water sources and fire pumps. The petitioner- association noticed that the deficiencies pointed out by the 2nd respondent are not capable of implementation for the reason that construction was completed during the year 2000 and it has been in occupation of the residents since then. The construction of the building did not allow any major structural changes to accommodate the correction of deficiencies as pointed out by the 2nd respondent. Another notice was received by the petitioner-association on 03.10.2007 alleging that they have contravened the provisions of Section 13 of the A.P. Fire Services Act, 1999 and the petitioner- association submitted their explanation on 26.12.2007 stating that the height of the building is below 18 meters and as such no objection certificate is not required under the Act. It was also stated by the petitioner-association that they have arranged fire fighting safety measures by providing fire extinguishers in each floor. Without considering the same, the 1st respondent issued proceedings No.H3/6559/2007 dated 04.01.2008 stating that the petitioner- association did not comply with the deficiencies pointed out and held that building is unfit for occupation. The 1st respondent further directed respondents 5 and 6 to disconnect power supply and water supply. The said proceedings were issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of the A.P. Fire Services Act, 1999 came into force with effect from 01.02.2001 and by virtue of the amendment made in 2006 to Section 13 of the Act, it was given retrospective effect from 01.02.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner also raised several other grounds.
4. But a reading of the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 04.01.2008 states that no explanation was submitted by the petitioner before 30.12.2007, which in fact, is not correct from the material papers filed by the petitioner before this Court. The direction to Respondents 5 and 6 to disconnect power and water supply connection to the petitioner is beyond the scope of the powers vested on him under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Though, it was preliminary order, in view of the non consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 26.12.2007, the order passed by the 1st respondent is unsustainable in law and accordingly, it is set aside.
5. In the circumstances, Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner-association and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 10.06.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 1 WRIT PETITION No.425 of 2008 Date: 10.06.2014 BSS