Sri Bhaskar Alloy Castings vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Bhaskar Alloy Castings, a proprietary concern dealing in alloy castings and registered with GST, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court. The petitioner had purchased Plot No. 7/2 (northern part) at IDA Pashamylaram from AVS Engineering Industries. Needing to vacate rented premises, the petitioner applied to Respondent No. 5 (Zonal Manager and Executive Officer, TSIIC Ltd.) on 21.02.2022 for mutation of the land in their records. Subsequent representations were made on 29.10.2022, 04.11.2022, and 18.11.2022. The petitioner contended that despite these applications and representations, Respondent No. 5 had failed to consider the request for change of ownership, leading to the present petition seeking a mandamus to direct the mutation.

Held

The High Court, having heard the submissions of both parties and without delving into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed Respondent No. 5 to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 18.11.2022, submitted by the petitioner. This consideration was to be strictly in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court also directed that a copy of the order be communicated to the petitioner. The issue of illegality, arbitrariness, and violation of constitutional rights and natural justice was implicitly addressed by the direction to consider the representation, implying that a proper consideration would rectify any such alleged violations. No specific finding was made on the constitutional violations as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 5 in not considering the petitioner's application dated 21.02.2022 and subsequent representations dated 29.10.2022, 04.11.2022, and 18.11.2022 for change of ownership in respect of Plot No. 7/2 (northern part) in the IALA records is illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, as well as the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the failure of Respondent No. 5 to consider their applications and representations for mutation of ownership constituted illegal and arbitrary action, violating fundamental rights and principles of natural justice. They sought a direction for the change of ownership to be recorded. Respondents' Contention: The Standing Counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5 submitted that the representations made by the petitioner were pending consideration and that Respondent No. 5 would consider them and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.