Telangana HC Approves Stilt-Plus-Five-Floor Building in Warangal

HYDERABAD: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court quashed an order of the Warangal municipality refusing permission to a landowner to construct a stilt-plus-five-floor building, and allowed a writ petition filed by Pingle Hema. The petitioner said she had a 980-square yard plot. Earlier, building permission in her favour was cancelled on the ground that the property was involved in a civil litigation. The petitioner successfully contended before the High Court that the dispute was only with regard to 65 sq. yds and she was entitled to an independent consideration given a total extent she owned, without reference to the 65 sq. yds. In a fresh round the civic authorities rejected her application on yet another ground. Senior counsel G. Vidya Sagar said that the authorities could not have gone beyond the first showcause notice and that the rejection in the second round was illegal. Justice Vinod Kumar faulted the civic authorities for rejecting the petitioner’s application on unstated fresh grounds. This would amount rejecting the petitioner’s case without affording a proper opportunity.

HC to hear appeals on RBI panel

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court refused to hear a vacate application and decided to hear writ appeals relating to the RBI Master Circular of 2015, which deals with the quorum of the first level committee (FLC) which should be headed by an executive director or equivalent and consist of two other senior officers of the rank of general manager (GM) or deputy GM. The bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar was dealing with a writ appeal field by Kanumuru Rama Devi, questioning an order of a single judge on a writ petition questioning an FLC order classifying the appellant as a wilful defaulter. The single judge, dismissing the petition, held that if the petitioner was aggrieved by an FLC order they should approach the review committee seeking to review the order passed by the FLC. In Clause 3 (c) the word “should” is mentioned. The orders passed by the first level committee shall become final only after it is confirmed by the review committee. The petitioners, instead of approaching the review committee, had filed the petition and were trying to stall the proceedings initiated by the respondent. According to senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the appellant, the FLC lacked the quorum prescribed under the Master Circular. He said classifying a person as a wilful defaulter is visited with severe civil consequences and therefore a statutory authority is bound to follow the law as prescribed. He had earlier argued disclosure of the quorum or the composition of the FLC shall have a salutary impact on the decision-making process. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant was given full opportunity before the impugned decision was taken. That apart, the RBI Master Circular did not contemplate disclosure of composition of the FLC. Since there was an interim order pending, the writ petition continued during the appeal by virtue of an earlier direction of the bench. The bench scheduled hearing in the appeal in the last week on January. 

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court refused to hear a vacate application and decided to hear writ appeals relating to the RBI Master Circular of 2015, which deals with the quorum of the first level committee (FLC) which should be headed by an executive director or equivalent and consist of two other senior officers of the rank of general manager (GM) or deputy GM. The bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar was dealing with a writ appeal field by Kanumuru Rama Devi, questioning an order of a single judge on a writ petition questioning an FLC order classifying the appellant as a wilful defaulter. The single judge, dismissing the petition, held that if the petitioner was aggrieved by an FLC order they should approach the review committee seeking to review the order passed by the FLC. In Clause 3 (c) the word “should” is mentioned. The orders passed by the first level committee shall become final only after it is confirmed by the review committee. The petitioners, instead of approaching the review committee, had filed the petition and were trying to stall the proceedings initiated by the respondent. According to senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the appellant, the FLC lacked the quorum prescribed under the Master Circular. He said classifying a person as a wilful defaulter is visited with severe civil consequences and therefore a statutory authority is bound to follow the law as prescribed. He had earlier argued disclosure of the quorum or the composition of the FLC shall have a salutary impact on the decision-making process. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant was given full opportunity before the impugned decision was taken. That apart, the RBI Master Circular did not contemplate disclosure of composition of the FLC. Since there was an interim order pending, the writ petition continued during the appeal by virtue of an earlier direction of the bench. The bench scheduled hearing in the appeal in the last week on January.