IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13278 of 2010 Between: K.Vara Laxmi …PETITIONER AND 1. The Deputy Commissioner 2. K.M.Pandu .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.13278 OF 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.3614 of 2010 aggrieved by the action of the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner in directing her to stop further construction in plot No.3 (part) in survey No.44-A, situated at Mahendranagar of Quthbullapur(V), Ranga Reddy District. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 31.03.2010, with directions as under: “Ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to submit an additional reply to the show cause notice enclosing thereto relevant documents including proof of her vendors title over the property in question. If such a reply, along with all the requisite documents including the documents aforementioned, is submitted within a period of two weeks from today, the first respondent shall consider the objections and take an appropriate decision thereafter in accordance with law. In case the documents sought for are not submitted within the aforementioned period of two weeks, it is open to the first respondent to take action for cancellation/revocation of the permission granted earlier. Till then the first respondent shall not demolish the property in question. The petitioner shall also not to make any further construction. The writ petition is, accordingly disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs”. As against the said order though the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.277 of 2010, it was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. It is not disputed before this Court that in-compliance with the order of this Court in W.P.No.3614 of 2010, the petitioner submitted the necessary documents within the time specified. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 19.05.2010 came to be passed holding as under: “The appellant has already submitted the documents, which were not considered by this office and a show cause notice was already issued. Hence, in the circumstances explained above, the permission accorded in proceedings No.G/B.A/455/294/09-10, dated 22.09.2009 is hereby revoked” Aggrieved by the said order the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the impugned order which was passed without adverting to any of the objections raised by the petitioner was not in conformity with the order of this court in W.P.No.3614 of 2010. Heard both sides. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the building permission accorded to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 22.09.2009, was revoked without referring to any of the documents produced by the petitioner in terms of the order of this Court in W.P.No.3614 of 2010. The order also shows that no reasons were assigned while revoking the building permission granted earlier. The law is well settled that absence of reasons is one of the grounds for Judicial Review since the failure of the authority to assign reasons would result in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also apparent that the order is not in conformity with the directions in W.P.No.3614 of 2010. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 19.05.2010 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders afresh in terms of the order of this Court, dated 31.03.2010, in W.P.No.3614 of 2010. Till such order is passed, the first respondent shall not demolish the properties in question and the petitioner shall not make any further constructions. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J JUNE 15, 2010. YVL