THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.1085 OF 2002 Dated 7th September, 2009 Between: Kapadia Constructions …Petitioner And The Chief City Planner (Town Planning Section) and Another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : SRI R.N.HEMENDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the respondents : SMT KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following O R D E R: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not refunding an amount of Rs.57,818/- paid by it towards the building permit fee as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a partnership firm doing construction business. It made an application on 09.09.1998, seeking building permission and approval of plan for construction of residential flats in Plot Nos.6-3- 1247 and 1247/A situated at Somajiguda, Hyderabad. At the time of making the application, it paid an amount of Rs.57,818/- towards the building permit fee by way of a demand draft bearing No.046953, dated 11.09.1998, drawn on A.P.Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. But the application of the petitioner was rejected by letter No.320/TP5/98, dated 23.01.1999 issued by respondent No.1, informing that the proposal submitted by the petitioner for the construction of residential flats in P.Nos.6-3-1247 & 1247/A situated at Somajiguda, Hyderabad, had been examined and the same was refused as it was informed by the nominee of the Collector, Hyderabad that a Court case is pending between the Collectorate and the applicant and that until the same is decided, no permission can be granted. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on 08.08.2001 before respondent No.2 to refund the building permit fee paid by it while making the application for building permission and approval of plan. As the said application for refund of the amount has not been considered by the respondents, it approached this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that when the application submitted by it for sanctioning of building permission was rejected by recording reasons, there is no reason for the respondents in not acceding to its request for refund of the amount paid by it along with the application. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein they admitted receipt of Rs.57,818/- along with the application and also rejection of the request of the petitioner for grant of building permission and approval of plan. So far as the request of the petitioner for refund of the building permit fee is concerned, it is stated in the counter that in view of bye-law No.5.3 of the Municipal Corporation Building Bye-laws, 1981, the petitioner is not entitled for refund of the said amount. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Municipal Corporation Building Bye-laws, 1981 were framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 589 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. As per bye-law No.5.1, no application for building permit, as referred to in bye-law Nos.4.1 to 4.2, shall be valid unless and until the person giving notice has paid fees as per bye-law No.5.2 and attested copy of the receipt of such payment is attached with the application. Bye-law No.5.3, which is relied on by the respondents for not acceding to the request of the petitioner for refund, reads as follows- “5.3. Withdrawal of application:-The applicant may withdraw his application and plans at any time prior to the sanction and such withdrawal shall terminate all proceedings with respect to such application and the fees paid shall, in no case, be refunded.” From the material on record, it is a clear case where the petitioner did not withdraw the application filed by it, dated 09.09.1998. When the petitioner applied for grant of building permission and approval of plan, by paying necessary permit fee, and the said request was rejected on the ground that there is a Court case pending with regard to the land in question, it is not understandable as to how bye- law No.5.3 can be pressed into service. Having collected permit fee, without which the application for sanctioning of building permit could not have been treated as a valid one to consider, there is no reason or justification for the respondents to withhold such permit fee even after rejection of the application. Since the respondents withheld the permit fee without any just or valid reason, the petitioner is also entitled for reasonable rate of interest on the said amount. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.57,818/- paid by the petitioner towards the building permit fee along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petitioner’s application for refund till the date of payment, within a period of two (2) months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 7th September, 2009 vrn