Telangana HC Raps Second Plea on Same Grounds, Calls It Judicial Indiscipline

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court made it clear that the order passed by a single judge of the High Court in a writ petition cannot be assailed before a coordinate bench by way of another writ petition. Justice T. Vinod Kumar said such action amounted to legal impropriety.

The judge said that even though a division bench granted liberty to the petitioners to seek review or file a fresh writ petition against the orders of the single judge, it did not entitle the petitioner to call in question the order of the single judge in another writ petition before a coordinate (another) bench of the same court.

Justice Vinod Kumar said that the liberty to file a fresh petition would be confined only to the relevant factors not being brought to the notice of the court in earlier petition, or facts stated being wrong.

The judge was dealing with a petition by a senior citizen from Begumpet, challenging the GHMC’s decision to demolish the building constructed by her and her son by clubbing two adjacent plots and taking permission for two buildings separately.

A passerb-by had approached the High Court, complaining of the inaction of the GHMC in taking action against the construction, which was in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The petitioner did not mention either the senior citizen or her son as respondents in his petition, in which the court directed the GHMC to take action as per law.

Following the court orders, when the GHMC was ready to take action, the senior citizen filed an appeal before the division bench challenging the single judge orders, stating she was not a party. The division bench disposed of the appeal by granting liberty to the elderly woman to file a review petition or a fresh petition.

Subsequently, she filed a fresh petition before the single judge challenging the earlier orders. In the fresh petition, she raised questions about a non-affected party filing the petition against her and also sought regularisation of the building.

Justice Vinod Kumar reiterated the settled position of law, which stated that even a stranger or a passer-by could lodge a complaint with regard to unauthorised and illegal constructions. The judge rejected the plea to direct regularisation of the building because it deviated from the sanctioned building permit and was in violation of the building rules and regulations.

The court also considered the GHMC`s stand which said that the regularisation provision would be applicable only in respect of applications which have been made seeking regularisation of the constructions made in deviation of the sanctioned plan as on 28.10.2015, for which the government had issued building penalisation scheme (BPS), but not for the subsequent deviated constructions.