HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.33345 of 2010 Date : 8-8-2011 Between : M.Praveen Kumar .. Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri B.Venkat Rama Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Dr.Y.Padmavathi, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 5 : Sri S.Srinivas Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notice in Lr.No.307/ACP/C10/GHMC/2010, dated 28-8-2010 issued under Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") revoking regularization proceedings dated 4-3-2010 in respect of flat No.G-3 in premises bearing No.8-2-248/B/8 of Journalists colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The father of the petitioner has submitted a plan originally to respondent No.1 for construction of ground, first and second floors. The said plan was sanctioned on 27-4- 2002. Later on, a development agreement was entered into between the petitioner’s father and respondent No.4 under which the petitioner’s father was allotted the entire first floor and the western half of second floor while respondent No.4 has retained the ground floor and the eastern half of the second floor. However, contrary to the sanctioned plan, respondent No.4 has constructed cellar, ground, first and second floors and a pent house on the third floor. The petitioner has applied for regularization of construction over the purported ground floor area showing the same as flat No.G3. By proceedings dated 4-3-2010, respondent No.2 has regularized the construction to the extent of 360 sq. feet in flat No.G3. Respondent Nos.3 and 5 approached respondent No.1 with a representation that the petitioner got the regularization done by misrepresenting that the area constructed by him in the cellar portion, which is meant for parking, was in fact made in the ground floor. On the said representation, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 3-7-2010 wherein two grounds were mentioned, namely, that the petitioner made a misrepresentation by showing the construction on the ground floor and that he has also suppressed the fact that he has filed civil suit, O.S.No.75/2008, which was pending. As no orders were passed on the said show cause notice, respondent Nos.3 and 5 filed W.P.No.21369/2010. An interim order was granted on 19-10-2010 by this court directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pass appropriate orders on their representation. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed whereby respondent No.2 has cancelled the order of regularization by invoking Section 450 of the Act. At the outset, Sri B.Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.2 has no power or authority to invoke Section 450 of the Act as the same does not apply to regularization proceedings. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of this court in Garapati Radha Vs. Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada[1]. I have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel. This court, in the decision referred supra, while holding that Section 450 of the Act cannot be invoked for canceling an order passed regularizing unauthorized constructions under the Building Penalisation Scheme, however, held that if the Municipal Corporation is satisfied that the information provided for regularization of the unauthorized and illegal construction was found to be false, the order itself is liable for cancellation. Accordingly, this court has recognized the power of respondent No.1 and its officers to take action for cancellation of the orders passed regularizing the unauthorized and illegal constructions, independent of Section 450 of the Act. Therefore, even if respondent No.2 could not have invoked Section 450 of the Act, still, he had powers to cancel the regularization order in the event he finds that the same was obtained by misrepresentation or in violation of the conditions contained therein. As regards the legality or otherwise of the impugned order, I find that the same suffers from absence of any reasons whatsoever. The law is well settled that furnishing reasons by the authorities while passing orders, constitutes the basic requirement of principles of natural justice as absence of the same would disable the aggrieved party to question the same by availing further remedies in an effective manner. (See: M.P.Industries Limited v. Union of India[2], G. Vallikumari vs. Andhra Edu. Society[3] and The Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others[4]. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner is running business in the cellar floor which is meant for parking in premises bearing No.8-2-248/B/8, that a show cause notice was issued and that the reply given by the petitioner was not satisfactory. It was therefore concluded that the petitioner got the constructions regularized by misrepresentation and suppression of the facts. It is the case of the petitioner, as could be seen from the reply dated 22-7-2010, that he has constructed in the ground floor. Even though respondent Nos.3 and 5 have produced material in support of their plea that the petitioner has come out with a completely false plea that the construction was made in the cellar portion meant for parking but not on the ground floor, unfortunately respondent No.2 has not adverted to any material whatsoever to support the conclusion drawn by him that the petitioner’s plea is false. Even though a formal reference was made to the petitioner’s reply dated 22-7-2010, respondent No.2 failed to discuss its contents. As the impugned order seriously affects the interests of the petitioner, respondent No.2 is expected to speak his mind by giving reasons for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has constructed in the cellar area meant for parking and not in the ground floor as claimed by him. In my considered opinion, absence of these reasons, at least in brief, has vitiated the impugned order. It is neither the function nor the forte of this court to examine the various material filed by respondent Nos.3 and 5 in order to support the finding of respondent No.2, as basically it is the job of respondent No.2 to support his own findings with reference to the material available before him. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set-aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the entire material with reference to the reply given by the petitioner and pass a speaking order. In the event he comes to the conclusions as appearing in the impugned order, he shall discuss the material on the basis of which he has drawn those conclusions. He shall complete this exercise and pass an appropriate speaking order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner and respondent No.3. The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 30-12-2010 is vacated and WPMP No.42314/2010 and WVMP No.1232/2011 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 8-8-2011 AM [1] 2008(3) ALT 38 [2] AIR 1966 S.C. 671 [3] (2010) 2 SCC 497 [4] (2010) 3 SCC 732