HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.24375 of 2010 Date : 20-9-2011 Between: Smt.S.B. Vasantha .. Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Uppal Circle, represented by its Deputy Commissioner, and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri M. Ramakanth for Sri Srinivas Polavarapu Counsel for respondents : Sri C. Damodar Reddy, Standing Counsel The Court made the following: ORDER: The husband of the petitioner entered into an agreement with the erstwhile Commissioner, Uppal Kalan Municipality, on 30-12-2003, which was subsequently merged in respondent No.1-Corporation whereunder he was granted permission to construct a toilet complex at an estimated cost of Rs.2,90,000/- and manage the same by providing for its regular cleaning. Clause 1 of the agreement included the successors of first and the second parties, as included in the said expressions. During his life time, the husband of the petitioner constructed the toilet complex and was maintaining the same. The husband of the petitioner died on 8-8-2008. On 21-11-2008, the petitioner has informed the respondents that on the death of her husband she is entitled to maintain the toilet complex and requested for permission to her to continue the work which was being carried by her husband. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner, with respect to which there is no dispute, that even though written permission was not given, the petitioner was permitted to run the toilet complex. On 28-6-2010, the Assistant Medical Officer of respondent No.1-Corporation has issued notice dated 28-6-2010 wherein the following defects were pointed out: “1. That you have not renewed the contract for the year 2010-11. 2. That you connected the drain outlets directly into open drain in stead of underground connection which is a major health hazard. 3. That there are public complaints in respect of excess collection of fee at every use of your Mee-Seva. 4. More over there are also public complaints/neighbours regarding the nuisance due the maintenance of in hygienic condition.” The petitioner pleaded that she has replied to the said notice on 9-9-2010 wherein she has requested for permission to rectify the defects within four working days. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition with the grievance that subsequently the toilet complex was closed by the respondents without serving any notice or order on her. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of respondent No.1-Corporation, it is inter alia stated that after the death of her husband, the petitioner has taken over the management of the toilets, that she has violated the agreement conditions relating to the maintenance of the toilets and that therefore notice dated 28-6-2010 was issued to her. It is further averred that inspite of the said notice, the petitioner failed to comply with or rectify the defects and therefore respondent No.1 has issued the closure notice on 19-8-2010 and that as there was no response from the petitioner, the toilets were closed on 26-8-2010. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client has not received either the closure notice dated 19-8-2010 or any order closing the toilet as claimed in the counter-affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel has not placed before the court any such orders either. Be that as it may, Clause 13 of the agreement dated 30-12-2003 envisages the period of agreement as ten years after obtaining the prior written approval of the Commissioner of Uppal Kalan Municipality. Under Clause 14 of the said agreement, if there is any neglect or lapse on the part of the second party i.e., the private party, to construct and regularly maintain the toilet complex, respondent No.1 is entitled to terminate the agreement after giving reasonable time and opportunity. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that the agreement dated 30- 12-2003 has been terminated. So long as the agreement is in force, the petitioner is entitled to run the toilets, subject however to strict compliance with the terms of the agreement. Since the petitioner’s grievance is that no opportunity was given to her before issuing the notice dated 28-6-2010 despite her request to grant some time for removal of the defects as pointed therein, it would be reasonable to permit the petitioner to rectify the defects mentioned in Sl.Nos.2 to 4 of the said notice. As regards the objection raised in Sl.No.1 of the notice, the question of renewal would not arise since as noted above the period of the agreement is ten years which appears to be valid till 2014. Thus, so long as the period of agreement subsists, there is no need for the petitioner to obtain renewal of the contract. In the premises as above, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.1 for permitting her to undertake the repairs and rectify the defects as pointed out in Sl.Nos.2 to 4 of notice dated 28-6-2010. Within one week from the date of receipt of such application, necessary permissions shall be given to the petitioner for rectification of the defects. Within one month thereafter, the petitioner shall submit a compliance report before respondent No.1 and thereafter she shall be permitted to reopen the toilet complex and run the same till the expiry of the agreement period, subject however to strict compliance with the agreement conditions. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP No.31201/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 20-9-2011 AM