IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25387 of 2008 Between: Reddi Sangaiah S/o. Late Ramaiah R/o.1-7-495/9, Dayara Market, Zamisthanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Tank bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section, Circle No. IX, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 K.Mamata W/O K.Anil Kumar R/O D.No. 1-7-496/12, Dayara Market Zamisthanpur, Musheerabad,Hyderabad (R-3 is impleaded as per court order dt.22-6-09 in WPMP 6007/09) ....RESPONDENTS 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 writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the notice issued by the respondent No.2 in Lr.No.1029/ACP/CP/TPS/GHMC/2008 dt.14.11.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and violatie of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same, and pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25387 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notice dated 14.11.2008 issued by the second respondent under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, thereby directing the petitioner to pull down/remove the unauthorized construction/encroachment at premises bearing House No.1-7-495/9, Plot No.8 (part) situated at Dayara market, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderbad within 24 hours, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.9424 of 2008 challenging an identical notice dated 23.4.2008 issued by the second respondent under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. The said writ petition was disposed of after hearing both the parties holding as under: “ A fact remains that the petitioner has not furnished the title documents to the respondents 1 and 2- Corporation despite notice being issued to him. Since the petitioner has already constructed a house, according to him, in the year 1981, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit his title documents and other documents such as approved plan to the respondents 1 and 2-Corporation so as to verify whether the constructions are made within the site owned by him or not. The petitioner shall complete this exercise within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereupon, the respondents 1 and 2-Corporation shall decide as to what extent the petitioner encroached the road margin and take necessary steps for removal of the structures made by the petitioner on the encroached portion. If the petitioner fails to comply the direction given by this Court, the notice issued by the respondents 1 and 2-Corporation under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 shall hold good.” 3. Pursuant to the said order dated 02.07.2008, the petitioner states that he had submitted the documents and the same were acknowledged by the second respondent on 4.8.2008. In spite of the same, it is alleged that the impugned order dated 14.11.2008 was passed without considering any of the documents submitted by the petitioner and without assigning any reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the second respondent failed to assign any reasons while calling upon the petitioner to pull down/remove the alleged authorized construction/encroachment. As noticed above, this Court while disposing Writ Petition No.9420 of 2008, directed the writ petitioner to submit the documents, so as to enable the Corporation to verify whether the constructions were made within the site owned by him or not. Admittedly, the petitioner had furnished the documents on 4.8.2008. In the circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 are bound to consider the documents filed by the petitioner and record a finding as to the illegal constructions and encroachments, if any. Apparently, no such finding was recorded in the impugned order. The law is well settled that absence of reasons is one of the grounds for Judicial Review since the failure to assign reasons would result in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned notice dated 14.11.2008 is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the documents submitted by the petitioner on 4.8.2008 and pass a reasoned order afresh in terms of the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.9424 of 2008. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J Dt.22-06-2009 RAR THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25387 of 2008 DATED : 22-06-2009