THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.Nos.27993, 26313 & 16307 of 2010 and C.C.No.20 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.26313 of 2010 and C.C.No.20 of 2011 instituted by M/s Firdouse Collection, represented by Mr. Mohd. Arif Ali and W.P.No.27993 of 2010, instituted by Mr. Shaik Ahmed Hussain, can be dealt with together and decided by this common order. Two individuals by name Shaik Ahmed Hussain and Mohd. Amanullah Khan instituted W.P.No.12234 of 2010 in this Court seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondent Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’), in threatening to demolish the boxes bearing Nos. M.P.R.1 and M.P.L.2 in premises No.20-4-1112, Julukhana, Lad Bazar, Hyderabad, without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law, as bad in law. The said writ petition was decided by my brother Justice Ramesh Ranganathan on 02-06-2010. The learned Judge, after hearing Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, directed the respondent Corporation not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession over the boxes in question, except after putting them on notice and giving them an opportunity of being heard. W.P.No.26313 of 2010 has then come to be instituted by M/s. Firdous Collections, impleading only Mohd. Amanullah Khan as the 4th respondent to the said writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondent Corporation in not taking any action for removing the illegal constructions made pursuant to their notice issued on 12-07-2010 issued under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) as bad in law. As could be seen from page 16 of the paper book in the said writ petition, a notice dated 12-07-2010 was issued by the Corporation under Section 452 of the Act, proposing to remove the unauthorized erection of iron boxes in the corridor / open space in violation of the rules and regulations. It is alleged by the petitioner in W.P.No.26313 of 2010 that the respondent Corporation officials are adopting dilatory tactics in pursuing the matter in spite of issuing the notice referred to supra. At the time of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation informed that final notice under Section 636 of the Act has been issued on 04-11- 2010 and within three days, the necessary follow up action would be taken. A report of compliance of the said action was hence called for by this Court on 10-11-2010. At that stage, Mr. Shaik Ahmed Hussain instituted W.P.No.27993 of 2010, questioning the validity of the final notice issued by the Corporation under Section 636 of the Act, on 04-11-2010 without considering the explanation submitted by the said writ petitioner on 29- 06-2010 as well as on 21-07-2010. It will be appropriate to notice that at page 15 of the paper book filed in the said writ petition, show cause notice issued in terms of Section 452 of the Act on 12-07-2010 was placed. At Page 11 of the said paper book, a detailed explanation drawn on 21-07-2010 addressing the Assistant City Planner, Circle-V was enclosed. At Page 14, the receipt of this explanation dated 21-07-2010 has been acknowledged by the Assistant City Planner of the Corporation as well as the Zonal Commissioner of the Corporation on 21-07-2010. It is, therefore, more than clear that the explanation drawn on 21-07-2010 by Sri Shaik Ahmed Hussain has been received by the officials on 21-07-2010 itself, but nonetheless, it has not even adverted to in the final notice in terms of Section 636 of the Act that was issued on 04-11-2010. Not even a casual reference was made, let alone consideration being shown for the contents of the objections dated 21- 07-2010 in the final notice dated 04-11-2010. It is fundamental of any administrative / quasi judicial authority to consider the explanation offered to any show cause notice issued to any person, who is likely to be affected or impacted by the proposed decision. The objections raised have to be weighed on their merits. Compliance with the principles of natural justice does not mean a mechanical process of issuing a show cause notice and receiving the explanation and then passing a final order thereafter without considering or adverting to the objections raised. The principles of natural justice undoubtedly contemplate and comprehend serious application and consideration to the objections raised for the proposed action. If no consideration were to be shown to the explanation offered, it amounts to total abdication of power and non- application of mind. Non-application of mind is yet another form of mechanical application. Every objection has to be considered for its intrinsic merit. Should the objection be considered as meritorious, it has to be upheld. Only for the lack of merit, an objection can be rejected. That process is what is known as decision making process. Therefore, the decision-making authority was required to apply himself as to the tenability or the lack of it in the objections. Without making any reference even to the objections filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.27993 of 2010, the Corporation has finalized and issued the final order in terms of Section 636 of the Act on 04-11-2010. I cannot, but set aside the said order. Ex facie, it is an unsustainable order. The matter will have to go back for reconsideration at the hands of the Commissioner / competent authority. Let the competent authority consider the objections raised by the petitioner in W.P.No.27993 of 2010 objectively and for the merits contained therein. Let an appropriate order be passed after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in W.P.No.27993 of 2010. I hope and trust that this exercise will be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably before the end of September 2011 and the order in that regard would also be communicated to the parties concerned. It is absolutely needless for me to observe that Mr. Mohd.Amanullah Khan, who is also put on the show cause notice dated 12.07.2010 should also be heard while finalizing the proceedings by the Commissioner in terms of the above order. Let there be a similar opportunity of hearing provided to Mr. Mohd. Amanullah Khan also by the Commissioner. Similarly, Mr. Mohd. Arif Ali of M/s. Firdouse Collections, Shop No.28B of Premises bearing No. 20-04-1112, Julukhana, Lad Bazar, Hyderabad, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.26313 of 2010 also be heard. In view of setting aside the final notice passed in terms of Section 636 of the Act, on 04-11-2010, I am constrained to dismiss W.P.No.26313 leaving liberty to the petitioner in the said writ petition to agitate about its grievances, if necessary, after the final decision referred to supra has been taken by the Corporation and communicated. In view of the dismissal of W.P.No.26313 of 2010, C.C.No.20 of 2011 cannot be entertained. Notice before admission issued on 01-02-2011 in the said contempt case, therefore, stands discharged. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.27993, W.P.No.16307 of 2010, which is also connected to these matters, has also been summoned and with his consent, the same also stands disposed of, inasmuch as the petitioner in the said writ petition Mr. Shaik Ahmed Hussain, is the same petitioner in W.P.No.27993 of 2010, at whose instance, the final notice issued under Section 636 of the Act, on 04.11.2010 has been set aside and hence, the cause in Writ Petition No. 16307 of 2010 does not survive independently. I hope and trust that the Commissioner of the Corporation will take all relevant facts and circumstances into account and consideration and take a final decision in the matter and communicate the same to all the parties concerned. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 22nd June 2011 mrk