V. Radhakrishna vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition at the stage of admission, with the consent of the parties. The primary issue revolved around the 3rd respondent's failure to consider the petitioner's explanations and relevant government orders before issuing a notice for rent arrears and threatening eviction. The Court noted the petitioner's grievance that their explanations, referencing G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 23.04.2010 and proceedings dated 19.06.2012, were not considered. The 3rd respondent, through its counsel, assured the Court that it would consider these explanations and documents. Accordingly, the Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the explanations and documents submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks from the receipt of the order. Pending this exercise, the 3rd respondent was directed not to proceed further with the notice dated 10.08.2021. No costs were awarded. The ratio decidendi is that statutory authorities must consider all relevant explanations and documents submitted by an individual before taking coercive action, especially when such action is based on a demand for arrears, and that principles of natural justice require such consideration.

Facts

The petitioner, V. Radhakrishna, a barber operating a shop (Shop No. 18, IDSMT), received a notice dated 10.08.2021 from the Nizamabad Municipal Corporation (3rd respondent). This notice demanded payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3,08,892/-, including GST, from December 2015 to July 2021, within three days, and threatened eviction. The petitioner claims this demand was made without proper notice and details of rent calculation as per GOMs 178 dated 23.04.2010 and proc. Dis. No.23530/05/N1 dated 19.06.2012. The petitioner submitted explanations on 08.09.2021 and 09.09.2021, asserting entitlement to benefits under the aforementioned government orders, but these were allegedly not considered by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the notice and seeking a direction to receive rent as per the specified government orders, adjusting any excess payments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice issued by the 3rd respondent demanding arrears of rent and threatening eviction, without considering the petitioner's explanations and relevant government orders, violates the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and the interpretation/application of GOMs 178 and proc. Dis. No.23530/05/N1). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the notice demanding arrears and threatening eviction was illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory, unreasonable, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution, as well as the principles of natural justice. They contended that the 3rd respondent failed to consider their explanations dated 08.09.2021 and 09.09.2021, which cited entitlement to benefits under G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 23.04.2010 and proceedings dated 19.06.2012. The petitioner sought a direction to the 3rd respondent to act as per these orders and adjust excess rents. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the 3rd respondent would consider the petitioner's explanations, including the contentions therein and the documents submitted.