* THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY + WRIT PETITION No.15653 of 2011 % DT.06.09.2011 # Smt.K.Uma Devi …Petitioner Vs. $ The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner and others … Respondents ^ Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Srinivas for Sri Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao ! Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Ms.V.Jaya Sree For Sri C.Damodar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi < Gist: > Head note: ? Cases referred: 1. (1993) 4 SCC 727 2. (1996) 3 SCC 364 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.15653 of 2011 Dated 06th September, 2011 Between: Smt.K.Uma Devi …Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.Srinivas For Sri Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Ms.V.Jaya Sree For Sri C.Damodar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, bearing Notice No.20/TPS/C9/GHMC/2011, dated 25.05.2011, of respondent No.2, issued under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). I have heard Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel, representing the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner is the owner of flat Nos.4 and 8, Block No.20, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad. The said flats were constructed by the A.P.Housing Board, and were allotted by the Government. On the complaint of respondent No.3, who is the petitioner’s neighbour, respondent No.2 issued notice under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action for removal of RCC roof at ground floor and first floor on the common passage raised without valid permission shall not be removed. Questioning the said notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13438 of 2011. While keeping the said writ petition pending, this Court has permitted the petitioner to submit her explanation and directed respondent No.2 to consider the explanation, if any, submitted by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 06.05.2011. Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed order under Section 636 of the Act on 25.05.2011 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction of RCC roof at ground floor and first floor in the common passage within 24 hours, failing which, the same will be removed by respondent No.1 at her expenses. Feeling aggrieved by this proceeding, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.2 are completely non-speaking, which failed to take into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order would undoubtedly show that the contents of the explanation of the petitioner have not been specifically adverted to. However, the petitioner has not denied the core allegation contained in the notice, dated 18.04.2011, issued under Section 452(1) and Sections 461(1) of the Act, namely, that she has raised RCC roof at ground floor and first floor in the common passage without any permission. In the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant City Planner of GHMC, the said allegation is reiterated in paragrapg-5. The principles of administrative law certainly require that an order affecting the rights of a party should contain reasons. This requirement is considered as a part of principles of natural justice. However, the law is equally well settled that the principles of natural justice shall not be arrested in a straight-jacket formula. They vary from situation to situation (see Managing Director, ECIL v. B.Karunakar[1]). I n State Bank of Patiala v. S.K.Sharma[2], the apex Court held that invalidating an action/order/decision on the ground of mere technical violation of principles which amounts to negation of justice instead of doing justice between the parties would not be justified. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner raised construction over a common passage. The petitioner does not deny the requirement of law that before any construction is undertaken, she shall obtain permission from the respondents. She also does not deny the fact that she did not obtain any such permission. When such construction is raised without any permission, the same is unauthorised which is liable to be removed. In the face of these admitted facts, absence of elaborate reasons in the proceedings issued under Section 636 of the Act cannot be said to be fatal so as to vitiate the very proceedings. The allegation contained in the notice, dated 18.04.2011, remains unrebutted with regard to the unauthorised construction over common passage. Therefore, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings, as such interference would perpetuate the illegal act of the petitioner. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 09.06.2011, extended from time to time, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.18759 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.2243 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th September, 2011 Note: LR copies to be marked. (b/o) VGB [1] (1993) 4 SCC 727 [2] (1996) 3 SCC 364