Ashwin Phafat vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioners, Ashwin Phafat and Vishnu Jhawar, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) respondents (Zonal Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner) as illegal. They alleged that GHMC was proposing to grant building construction permission to private respondents (Nos. 10-13) on the petitioners' open land. This proposal was allegedly based on the dismissal of an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 475 of 2021) in a civil suit (O.S. No. 1561 of 2022) by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, on December 4, 2023. The petitioners also claimed that GHMC failed to consider their representation dated February 5, 2024, and that the private respondents were carrying out construction without permission. The petitioners intended to file a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the dismissal order but had not yet done so due to delays in obtaining the decree copy.

Held

The High Court held that a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to direct a statutory authority to refrain from discharging its statutory functions. The Court relied on pronouncements from the Supreme Court in cases such as State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran, Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, Jatin Gupta v. Director General of GST Intelligence, and Isangti v. District Registrar. The Court found that the relief sought by the petitioners, which was to restrain the GHMC respondents from granting building permission, fell within the category of directing a statutory authority not to perform its duties. Therefore, based on the established legal precedents, the Court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and could not be granted. The Court dismissed the writ petition without imposing costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether a Writ of Mandamus can be issued directing statutory authorities (GHMC respondents) to refrain from discharging their statutory functions of granting building construction permission, particularly when the petitioners are seeking to restrain them from acting based on a court order and pending a civil appeal. (Article 226 of the Constitution of India, GHMC Act, 1955). Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the GHMC respondents' action in proposing to grant building permission was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, especially considering the ongoing civil dispute and their pending appeal. They sought to prevent the grant of permission until the civil matters were resolved. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, through their counsel, relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that a Mandamus cannot be issued to direct a statutory authority to cease its functions. They implicitly argued that the court should not interfere with the statutory duties of the GHMC.