- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
B. Murali v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Of Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The writ petition challenges the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad's (MCH) insistence on producing a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) from the District Collector, Hyderabad, as a precondition for grant of building permission. The petitioner purchased the property bearing MCH No. 1-6-249/1/1 (old No. 180), Gutta Mega City No. 1730, and applied to MCH for building permission by application dated 3.5.2006 (plan and fees paid). By letter dated 17.5.2006 (Lr. No. 249/6/1/2006), the Assistant City Planner, Circle-III refused permission on the ground that an NOC from the Joint Collector / District Collector was not submitted, noting that the petitioner had submitted an Andhra Law Times report instead.
The petitioner submitted a representation dated 5.6.2006 drawing attention to the High Court decision in District Collector, Hyderabad v. N. Krishna Mohan, 2000 (4) ALD 126 (DB), which was cited for the proposition that a District Collector's NOC is not required for grant of building permission, and requested the MCH to grant permission without insisting on the NOC. The MCH did not act on that representation, and the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the insistence on the NOC illegal, and directing the respondent to deal with the building application without requiring the NOC.
The Court previously directed notice and attendance of the Assistant City Planner (Sri Bikshapathi) to explain the refusal after the petitioner brought the relevant High Court decision to the authority's attention. The Assistant City Planner appeared, offered an unconditional apology, and stated a bona fide belief that the decision was not applicable to the present case.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (respondent) can lawfully insist upon production of a "No Objection Certificate" from the District Collector, Hyderabad, as a precondition for granting building permission.
- Whether an authority that is shown a binding judgment of the High Court (or other binding precedent) is obliged to follow the ratio of that judgment and refrain from making orders inconsistent with it, and what course an authority should take if it doubts applicability.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner purchased the property by registered sale deed (20-3-2006) and is in possession; predecessor(s) have had continuous possession since 1961.
- The petitioner applied for building permission (application dated 3.5.2006) and paid the prescribed fee.
- The petitioner relied on the High Court decision in District Collector, Hyderabad v. N. Krishna Mohan, 2000 (4) ALD 126 (DB), submitting that an NOC from the District Collector is not required for obtaining construction permission, and requested the MCH to grant permission without insisting on the NOC.
Respondent's / Authority's Position
- By letter dated 17-5-2006, the Assistant City Planner (T.P. Section Circle-III) refused the building application on the ground that an NOC from the Joint Collector / District Collector was not submitted, notwithstanding that the petitioner submitted an Andhra Law Times report (presumably containing the cited decision).
- On appearance before the Court, the Assistant City Planner (Sri Bikshapathi) offered an unconditional apology and stated that a bona fide mistake was made because he was under the impression that the cited decision was not applicable to the present case.
- The learned Standing Counsel fairly conceded that in light of District Collector, Hyderabad v. N. Krishna Mohan (supra) and Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District, 2001 (3) ALD 600, an NOC from the District Collector or revenue authorities cannot be insisted upon.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| District Collector, Hyderabad v. N. Krishna Mohan, 2000 (4) ALD 126 (DB) | The court cited this decision for the proposition that a "No Objection Certificate" from the District Collector is not required to be produced for obtaining construction permission. | The Court relied on this decision to conclude that when such a judgment is brought to the notice of the authority, the authority is bound to obey its ratio and cannot make orders requiring an NOC. The Court directed the Assistant City Planner to reconsider the application in light of this decision. |
| Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District, 2001 (3) ALD 600 | Used alongside the N. Krishna Mohan decision to support the principle that an NOC from the District Collector or revenue authorities cannot be insisted upon for building permission. | The Court accepted the Standing Counsel's concession about these authorities and treated them as binding guidance that an NOC cannot be insisted upon, informing the Court's direction that the Assistant City Planner act in accordance with these decisions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded on the following analytical path, based on the material before it:
- The Court noted that the petitioner had brought the High Court judgment (District Collector, Hyderabad v. N. Krishna Mohan) to the authority's attention in a representation dated 5-6-2006, and that the Assistant City Planner's refusal letter (17-5-2006) nevertheless recorded that the petitioner had submitted an Andhra Law Times report but refused permission on the ground that an NOC from the Joint/District Collector was not submitted.
- Prima facie, the Court observed that when a judgment of the Court (binding precedent) is brought to the notice of an authority, the authority is bound to follow the ratio of that judgment and should not make orders inconsistent with it. The Assistant City Planner was therefore required to obey the ratio of the cited judgment.
- The Assistant City Planner appeared, offered an unconditional apology and explained that a bona fide mistake had been made because he believed the decision was not applicable. The Court accepted this explanation as bona fide.
- The Court emphasized the broader principle that authorities must act with due care when binding precedents are brought to their notice. If an authority has doubt about applicability, the proper course is to consult legal advisers (Standing Counsel, Government Pleader, Advocate General) to avoid the risk of contempt for disregarding binding judicial orders.
- The Court expressed disapproval of orders passed despite binding precedents being placed before authorities, describing such conduct (deliberately or wilfully ignoring binding decisions) as potentially amounting to contempt of Court, though it declined to convert the present petition into a contempt proceeding.
- Given the assistance of the Standing Counsel (who conceded the principle) and the Assistant City Planner's bona fide explanation, the Court directed the Assistant City Planner to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the light of the cited High Court decisions within one week of receiving a copy of the order.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The Court directed that the Assistant City Planner, Circle-III, reconsider the petitioner's building application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in the light of the High Court decisions cited, within one week from receipt of a copy of the order. In view of the Assistant City Planner's bona fide explanation, the Court directed that no further costs be imposed.
Implications:
- The immediate, direct effect is that the Assistant City Planner and the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad must reconsider the petitioner's building application and pass orders consistent with the binding High Court authorities cited (which, as conceded before the Court, indicate that an NOC from the District Collector or revenue authorities cannot be insisted upon for obtaining construction permission).
- The Court admonished authorities more generally that they are bound by binding judicial decisions and should consult legal advisers when in doubt to avoid risking contempt of Court; the Court did not initiate contempt proceedings in this matter.
- No additional costs were imposed on the petitioner in view of the bona fide explanation offered by the Assistant City Planner.
- The Court did not purport to lay down a new precedent; it enforced existing precedent and required the authority to act in accordance with those precedents.
This summary is based exclusively on the content of the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond those stated in the opinion.
1. Heard both the Counsel.
2. This Court on 11.8.2006 made the following order:
“Notice before admission. Sri Ganta Rama Rao takes notice and requests time to file counter-affidavit. It is stated that on 5.6.2006 while resubmitting proposal with clarification of the legal position, District Collector, Hyderabad v. N. Krishna Mohan, 2000 (4) ALD 126 (DB), had been specifically referred to and it was also stated that No Objection Certificate from the Collector is not required. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Assistant City Planner, Circle-III Sri Bikshapathi on 17-5-2006 stated that “That you have not submitted the NOC from Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, but whereas you have submitted Andhra Law Times Report. Hence, permission applied for is hereby refused duly requesting to submit the NOC from District Collector, Hyderabad District, so as to take further necessary action”.
Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that when the judgment of the Court is duly brought to the notice of the authority, the concerned authority is bound to obey the ratio laid down in such judgment and such orders cannot be made. Hence, the Assistant City Planner, Circle-III, Sri Bikshapathi to be present before this Court on 22.8.2006 Post on 22.8.2006”
3. Sri Bikshapathi, the Assistant City Planner, Circle-III is present before this Court and offers unconditional apology for the bona fide mistake committed by him being under the impression that the decision is not applicable to the present case. The same is hereby recorded. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the insistence of the respondent to produce “No Objection Certificate” from the District Collector, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and highhanded and to direct the respondent to deal with petitioner's building application form dated 3.5.2006 filed with Circle No. III for grant of construction of building on premises bearing MCH No. 1-6-249/1/1 (old No. 180) Gutta, Mega City No. 1730, admeasuring 340 square yards equivalent to 284.27 square metres (51.6″ × 59.6′) situated at Gutta Zamistanpur, Hyderabad, A.P bounded by:
North: House of Sri R. Sattaiah and Late Sri R. Narsingh Rao
South: Part of House
East: 25′ wide Road
West: 18′ wide Road
without insisting upon “No Objection Certificate” from District Collector, Hyderabad and pass such other suitable orders.
4. It is stated that the petitioner purchased the property bearing MCH No. 1-6-249/1/1, (old No. 180), Gutta Mega City No. 1730, admeasuring 340 square yards equivalent to 284.27 square metres (51.6″ × 59.6′) at Gutta Zamistanpur, Hyderabad, A.P bounded by:
North: House of Sri R. Sattaiah and Late Sri R. Narsing Rao
South: Part of House
East: 25′ wide Road
West: 18′ wide Road
5. It is also stated that under the sale deed dated 20-3-2006 bearing No. 1014/2006, registered with the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. It is further stated that originally the petition property belonged to one Syed Shabuddin s/o. late Syed Yaqoob who sold the same under a registered sale deed to R. Venkat Swamy on 7-6-1961. After the death of R. Venkat Swamy, his widow being his sole surviving heir sold the same to Mrs. M. Sujata and five others by registered sale deed dated 12-9-1997. On 2.11.2001 Mrs. Sujatha and five others sold the same to Mrs. Nagam Bala Tripura Sundari. It is also stated that the petitioner purchased the property from Mrs. Nagam Bala Tripura Sundari by virtue of registered sale deed dated 20-3-2006. It is further stated that the said Nagam Bala Tripura Sundari delivered the possession and the petitioner is in possession of the property. Thus, his predecessor-in-title since 1961 had been in continuous uninterrupted possession and enjoying the property situated at Gutta Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. The Xerox copies of relevant documents are also produced before this Court. It is also stated that the petitioner after purchasing the property, had duly applied to MCH for building permission vide building application form dated 3.5.2006 along with the plan of the proposed construction which he intends to carry on after the grant of MCH sanction in his favour. The Xerox copy of the said application and Xerox copy of the plan also placed before this Court. It is further stated that the respondent corporation vide its letter dated 17.5.2006 bearing Lr. No. 249/6/1/2006 had refused permission to him on the ground that “No Objection Certificate” from the District Collector, Hyderabad was not filed. It is also stated that the fee towards grant of permission was paid under Challan No. 3309 dated 4.5.2006 The Xerox copies of the relevant documents are also produced. After the receipt of the said referred letter from MCH dated 17-5-2006, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 5-6-2006 wherein the petitioner brought to the notice of respondent- MCH that as per the judgment of this Court in District Collector, Hyderabad v. N. Krishna Mohan, 2000 (4) ALD 126 (DB). ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Collector is not required to be produced for obtaining construction permission and requested the MCH to grant permission without insisting upon the ‘No Objection Certificate’. It is also stated that in the said representation the petitioner quoted the relevant portion of the judgment reported in District Collector, Hyderabad v. N. Krishna Mohan (supra). It is stated that MCH had not taken any action on the petitioner's application and representation and in such circumstances, raising several grounds the writ petitioner approached this Court for appropriate reliefs.
6. The learned Standing Counsel in all fairness would submit that it is true that in the light of the decisions of this Court in District Collector, Hyderabad v. N. Krishna Mohan (supra) and in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District, 2001 (3) ALD 600, ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Collector or the Revenue Authorities cannot be insisted upon. The Assistant City Planner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, T.P Section Circle-III, Hyderabad by Letter No. 249/6/1/2006/1/1 dated 17-5-2006 while addressing the writ petitioner observed as hereunder:
Sub:— MCH-TPS-Cir. III-Prop. Construction of Ground floor only in r/o. Pr. No. 1-6-249/1/1 at Zamistanpur, Hyderabad-refused-Intimation-Reg.
Ref:— Yr. Bldg. application dated 4/5/2006.
——————
The building application seeking permission for proposed construction of Ground floor only in r/o. premises No. 1-6-249/1/1 situated at Zamistanpur, Hyderabad submitted by you in ref. cited has been refused on following grounds:
(a) That you have not submitted the NOC from Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, but whereas you have submitted Andhra Law Times Report.
Hence permission applied for is hereby refused duly requesting to submit the NOC from District Collector Hyderabad District., so as to take further necessary action.
Yours faithfully,
17-5-2006
Asst. City Planner, Cir. III”
7. From this letter it is clear that the concerned Assistant City Planner who is present before this Court today had knowledge about the decision produced before him since the same was referred to, to the effect that the writ petitioner had submitted Andhra Legal Decisions Report.
8. The concerned Assistant City Planner explained before this Court that a bona fide mistake was committed by him, inasmuch he was under the impression that the said decision is not applicable to the present case.
9. Whenever judgments of Courts law in general and the decisions of this Court as Court of record or of the Apex Court which are binding on the authorities are brought to the notice of the authorities, they are expected to act with due care and caution before making an order. It is needless to say that in the event of entertaining a doubt in relation to the applicability of a particular decision to the facts on hand, it would be appropriate for the concerned authority to consult and take advise of the concerned Standing Counsel, the concerned Government Pleader or the learned Advocate General as the case may be especially to avoid the risk of contempt of Court which may eventually flow out of such reckless, negligent, deliberate or wilful violations as the case may be. It is unfortunate that this Court in the recent past came across several such orders being passed despite the fact that the binding precedents though are being brought to the notice of the concerned authorities. This Court has no hesitation in stating that this approach to be deprecated and disapproved. We are governed by the rule of law. The Executive is bound to honour the binding judicial orders. This Court is conscious of the realities and also working of the public administration. It may be that all authorities may not be of the same standard hence in the event of doubt better to consult the concerned as referred supra and take appropriate advise and make an order. Regarding the aspect that a particular judgment of High Court was brought to the notice of the authority and despite the same, deliberately and wilfully ignoring the same, and making an order, in the considered opinion of this Court is nothing short of contempt of Court. This Court is not inclined to express any further opinion in this regard except making these observations, since this Court is disposing of a writ petition and not a contempt proceeding. Let the Assistant City Planner, Circle-III who appeared before this Court today, reconsider the issue and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the light of the decision of this Court referred to supra within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. In the light of the explanation submitted by the concerned officer, which this Court takes to be a bona fide explanation, no further costs be imposed.
Alert