THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12106 of 2007 ORDER: Petitioner is the owner of premises bearing No.5-9-22/A, situated at Secretariat road, Shapoorwadi, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad. He submitted an application on 21.08.2006 to the respondents with a request to accord permission for construction of commercial building. The application was rejected by the respondents, through proceedings, dated 31.05.2007. The reason mentioned in the order of rejection is that the Government is proposing to bring about BRTS corridor and that the place, at which, the construction proposed, is at junction. It was also mentioned that if a commercial complex is permitted, the traffic jam would increase. The petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings on several grounds. He contends that as long as the proposed construction is in accordance with the Zonal and Building Regulations, the respondents cannot reject the application. He further submits that the refusal of permission on the grounds mentioned above would infringe the legal and constitutional rights of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. The ambitious plans that are in contemplation for introduction of Metro Rail Project, B.R.T.S. etc., are mentioned in detail. It is stated that there is every likelihood of the property of the petitioner being needed for the project. Mention is also made of the traffic jam occurring in the area. Heard Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The construction of the building in the city of Hyderabad is governed by the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder. In addition to that, the Regulations issued by the Urban Development Authority concerned under the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 also become relevant. Permission for construction of the building can be granted, if only the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the Act, byelaws, etc. Axiomatically, an authority conferred with the power to grant permission can reject, only by citing the relevant provision of law, which disables the citizen from bringing about the construction. The desirability or otherwise of such construction can not at all be the concern of the sanctioning authority. In the impugned proceedings as well as in the counter-affidavit, the respondents plead that the property of the petitioner may be needed for the Metro Rail Project and that the construction may add to the traffic congestion. Both the grounds cannot be sustained in law. The petitioner cannot be denied the permission in contemplation of a scheme, which is yet to take place. In case the land is needed by any agency or authority, that has to acquire it, and follow the procedure prescribed by law. The respondents cannot deny permission in the absence of such proceedings. The second ground, namely the traffic congestion is equally untenable. If that is to be taken into account, virtually no construction can be permitted along the main roads in the city of Hyderabad, which are known for their frequent traffic congestion. It is a matter of common knowledge that hundreds of Shopping Malls and Complexes are coming into existence day by day. The Corporation cannot be selectively conscious of the traffic problem only when it comes to the case of the petitioner. Further, if the acquisition of the land owned by the petitioner would relieve the traffic congestion, the Corporation can very-well invoke its powers under the relevant provisions of law and acquire it. The rejection of permission even while the petitioner continues to be the owner can in no way be countenanced. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. The respondents are directed to process the application of the petitioner without reference to the grounds mentioned in the impugned proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:03.02.2011 kdl