IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27098 of 2006 Between: M/s. International Mission India (IMI) a company registered under the provisions of Companies ACt having its registered Office at 10 Tiruapti, Thangavel Nagar, Near Bethel Matriculation School, Kolathur, Chennai-99 and its Administrative office at 1-3-5, Mission Compound Bhongir Nalgonda District repby Director, Rev. V. John S/o V. babayy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 2 The Bhongir Municipality, Bhongir, rep by Municipal Commissioner, 3 Rev. B.J. Nahemaiah S/o Jayaraj r/o Pahadinagar, bhongir, Nalgonda District-508116. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandmus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declarignthe inactionof the respondent No.1 and 2 in not cancelingthepermit No. 802/C1/2003 dated 15-11-2003 issued in the name of pastor and President, the respondent No.3 herein which was obtained fraudlently and against the provisions o Chapter-IV, Building Regulations of Municipal Laws in Andhra Pradesh as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Building Regulations, consequently directthe respondent No.1 and 2 to immediatelycancel the permit No. 802/C1/2003 dated 15- 11-2003 and pass such other order ororders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.RADHA KRISHNA POLISETTY (SC FOR MPL) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 27098 OF 2006 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by M/s International Mission India ( I.M.I.) with a prayer to issue a writ, order particular one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the District Collector, Nalgonda-1st Respondent and the Bhongir Municipality-2nd Respondent in canceling the permit No. 802/C1/2003, dated 15-11-2003 issued in the name of Pastor and President, the respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Rev. V. John, has sworn to the writ affidavit. The writ affidavit, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. The petitioner company has its registered office at Chennai and the Administrative Office, at Bhongir, Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh. One of the objects of the petitioner company is to proclaim gospel in India in co-operation of local churches and also to act as trustees for the immovable property given and developed for such other activities, programs, projects which are in harmony with the objects of the petitioner company. The petitioner company started a church in the name of Telugu Christian. The church was formed for the purpose of conducting prayers, meetings, worship, services etc.,. The church was renamed as Christian Gospel Church. A Pastor cum President was appointed by the petitioner from time to time. Third Respondent is one such President and Pastor appointed by the petitioner company on the recommendations of the Church Committee. Subsequently, third respondent came to be removed from the office of President. The third respondent filed a Civil Suit before the Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir and obtained injunction as if the property of the petitioner company is his personal property. The third respondent has played fraud not only on the petitioner company, but also on the members of the Church Committee and the State Government. The third respondent obtained Building Permission from the first respondent-Municipality by playing fraud. On coming to know of the fraud played by the third respondent in obtaining building permission, the petitioner company requested the second respondent to cancel the building permission, their being no action on the part of the second respondent, the petitioner company approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian with a prayer as stated supra. 3. Notice before admission has been ordered on 29-12-2006. Third Respondent filed counter affidavit. The details of the counter affidavit are not required to be gone into, in view of the order proposed to be passed in this writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the Respondents No.2 and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner company is that the third respondent obtained building permission by playing fraud and therefore, the building permission needs to be cancelled. Section 345 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 reads as under : “345 Appeals:-1 ) An appeal shall lie to the council from: a) any n otice issued or other action taken or proposed to be taken by the Chairperson Commissioner, Municipal health officer or any other officer of the municipality: (i) under Sections 140, 150, 157 to 161 (both inclusive) sub- sections (1) and (3) of Section 217, Sub-Section (3) of Section 228, Subsection (1) of Section 231, sub-section (1) of section 232, sub-section (1) of Section 237 and Sections 239, 250, 261 and 262. (ii) under any bye-law concerning house drainage and the connection of house drains with Municipal drains or connections with Municipal water supply or lighting mains; or (b) any order of the Commissioner, Municipal health officer or any other officer of the Municipality granting or refusing a licence or permission; or © any order of the Commissioner made under Section 212 refusing to approve the site for building, or under sub- section (6) of Section 344 suspending or revoking a a licence; or (d) any other order of the Commissioner, Municipal health officer or any other officer of the municipality that may be made appealable by rules under Section 326. (2) The decision of the council on an appeal referred to it under sub-section (1) shall be final. (3) An appeal under this section shall be presented and disposed of in the manner prescribed and no court fee shall be chargeable therefore.” 6. A specific provision is there, enabling the aggrieved party to file an appeal seeking cancellation of the building permission granted by the second Respondent to the third respondent. 7. Such is the situation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal available under 345 of the A.P. Municipalities Act. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 19th June, 2008 KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 27098 OF 2006 19th June, 2008.