THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs.14173 AND 14174 OF 2009 16th November 2009 1. W.P.No.14173 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Rasheed and one other. …PETITIONERS AND The Commissioner, Nalgonda Municipality, Nalgonda District. …RESPONDENT 2. W.P.No.14174 of 2009 Between: Mohammed Lateef. …PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Nalgonda Municipality, Nalgonda District. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs.14173 AND 14174 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners claim to have purchased plots of land in Survey Nos.1259 and 1260 of Nalgonda Town and Mandal. They submitted application on 17.10.2009 to the Nalgonda Municipality, with a request to accord permission to construct building. On examining the application, the Municipality rejected the application through order dated 18.03.2008 stating that the proposed construction at a park is an open land, which is vested in the Municipality. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.7522 and 7269 of 2008. Both the Writ Petitions were disposed of at the admission stage, leaving it open for the petitioners to avail remedy of appeal under Section 345 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. The Council was directed to give opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Through a communication dated 02.02.2009, the Commissioner, Municipality, informed the petitioners that the appeal, preferred by them, was rejected by the Council. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. As directed by this Court, the petitioners availed the remedy of appeal before the Municipal Council. A clear direction was issued to the effect that the appellate authority shall give opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The communication, dated 02.02.2009, is silent as to the deliberations that have taken place before the Council. The petitioners filed a copy of Agenda dated 31.01.2009, which was placed by the Chairperson of the Municipality before the Council. After making a brief reference to the rejection of the application, orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions and filing of appeal by the petitioners, the note indicates that the petitioners cannot be accorded permission at all. Such a note is illegal on the face of it. The Chairperson could at the most have placed the relevant facts and the decision thereof should have been left the matter to the Council. Another serious flaw is that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of being heard at all. This is in contravention of the orders passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petitions. On these grounds, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. It is directed that the matter shall be placed before the Council without indicating any result or outcome before the Council takes a decision. An opportunity shall be given to the petitioners to put forward their contentions. The Council shall take a decision duly considering the points urged by the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 16th November 2009 RRB