HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 18381 of 2013 DATE: 27.10.2014 Between:
M/s. S.B. Rao & Sons, BPCL outlet, Rep., by its Proprietor & others.
… Petitioners And The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 18381 of 2013 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This writ petition has been filed alleging the action taken by the 3rd respondent in permitting the 7th respondent to construct the petrol pump vide his letter No.23673/H.O./NZ/CIR-17/2013, dated 16.05.2013, as illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the violation of the A.P. Municipalities Act and Rules therein and consequently suspend the permission granted by the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short, ‘GHMC’), Hyderabad.
It is stated in paragraph 6 of the writ affidavit that it is clearly observed from the hasty constructions taking place vigorously day and night that gross irregularities in total deviation of the sanctioned plan are being taken place and the photos herewith enclosed clearly depict the nature of construction and the violations going thereon. Firstly, the 20 KL HSD diesel tank has been installed in the open space to be left in the frontage, and another 20 KL MS petrol tank, which is highly flammable, has been installed without leaving the necessary setbacks in the rear side and the eastern side abutting the neighbouring property. Though a sanction for a four pillar canopy was granted, the 7th respondent in collusion with the dealer and the landlords constructed six pillar canopy in the area meant for mandatory setback. Though a sanction for 2 M.P.D. pumps was granted, the 3rd M.P.D. pump is being installed in the frontage setback area. All these are total gross irregularities.
This writ petition was originally filed before the learned Single Judge and His Lordship was pleased to pass the following order on 10.07.2013.
“The complaint of the petitioner is that Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) is constructing a petrol pump contrary to the sanction obtained vide permit No.23673/HO/NZ/Cir-17/2013, dated 16.05.2013 without maintaining set backs.
Hence, the 3rd respondent – Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad shall verify the complaint of the petitioner by causing an inspection and take appropriate action after receiving the inspection and take appropriate action after receiving the inspection report. It is directed that this exercise shall be done within two weeks from today after due notice to respondent No.7 viz., the Territory Manager of BPCL, Hyderabad Retail Territory, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.”
In our view, at the interim stage, the learned Single Judge has taken care of the grievance of the petitioners. No ground has been made as to the illegality of granting permission for construction of petrol pump. The only question raised is deviation in construction of the petrol pump i.e., without leaving requisite setbacks. It is alleged that when the aforesaid order dated 10.07.2013 was not carried out a contempt application was filed before the learned Single Judge. In the said contempt application the Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad, has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been specifically stated that the order dated 10.07.2013 has been carried out. In paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit it has been stated as follows:
“In this regard, it would be relevant to state that even prior to the order dated 10.07.2013, a notice dated 08.07.2013 under Section 452 of the GHMC Act was issued. As no explanation was received, another notice under Section 636 of the GHMC Act dated 18.07.2013 was issued to remove the compound wall and the projection of canopy. Since no effective steps were taken to do so, except removing additional MPD pump which is installed in the front set back area, the Corporation has demolished the compound wall constructed in road affected area along with the toilet constructed in the set back area and instructions were given to remove the canopy projection including prefabricated perforated structure and to reconstruct the two Nos. of 20 KL HSD tanks as per the approved plan. As the removal of canopy involves removal of steel members piece by piece, unfixing of nuts and bolts coupled with the fact that machinery is installed on the field, the concerned was instructed to remove the same and minimize damage to the existing filling units.”
We have checked up the records. No affidavit in reply denying the allegations made in the counter affidavit in the contempt application has been filed. Thus, while rejecting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no steps have been taken, we are of the view that indeed steps have been taken and set back issue has been taken care of by the Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad. Necessary direction has been given for removal of the canopy projection including prefabricated perforated structure and to reconstruct the two Nos. of 20 KL HSD tanks as per approved plan.
Learned counsel for the petitioner says that though a direction has been given no removal has been taken place. If it is so, we direct the Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad, to take further action in accordance with law. Having regard to the aforesaid statement and averment made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the decision taken by the municipal corporation, we think that no further order need be passed in this writ petition except the direction given above.
The writ petition is accordingly closed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 27.10.2014 ES