A show-cause notice issued with premeditation, indicating the Authority's decision, fails to comply with the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

A. S. Chandurkar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the show cause notice dated 11/01/2023 issued by respondent No.2-Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai principally on the ground that the said show-cause notice has been issued in a premeditated manner as it conveys the decision already taken by the respondent No.2-Deputy Municipal Commissioner without leaving anything for the petitioner No.1-Company to show cause.

2. The facts that are not in dispute are that initially on 24/06/1981 the Municipal Corporation granted no-objection to the display of two hoardings to M/s We Two Advertisers. The Company claims to have purchased the rights in that regard and on payment of monthly license fee to the Municipal Corporation, it has been operating the said hoardings since then. By virtue of having paid the hoarding fees till 31/03/2023, the company is entitled to have the said hoardings in place at least till that date. On 11/01/2023, the respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice to the Company in which it was stated that on 14/11/2022 a letter was received from the Maharashtra Rail Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.-MRIDCL requesting the Municipal Corporation to remove the hoardings since their existence was infringing the proposed Railway Over Bridge (ROB) alignment and the work of MRIDCL was being hampered. It was further stated that since the project was in larger public interest, the renewal application for advertisement permit of the Company would have to be revoked and obstruction of the said structure would have to be removed immediately. It was further stated that without prejudice to the same, the Company would be directed to remove the hoardings within thirty days. On failure to do so, the Company was required to show sufficient cause as to why the hoarding permit should not be revoked/cancelled. The Company on 30/01/2023 replied to the aforesaid notice stating therein that it had already entered into contract with its clients for a period of three years for which yearly advance had been taken. It was further stated that there was no fair opportunity given to the Company to submit its objection to the notice in question. It was stated that the show-cause notice be therefore withdrawn. It is in this backdrop that the Company has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising a challenge to the said show-cause notice dated 11/01/2023.

3. Dr Abhinav Chandrachud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on a bare perusal of the show-cause notice it was evident that the Municipal Corporation had merely made a show of issuing such show-cause notice since it had already decided to revoke the hoarding permit by stating so in the show-cause notice itself. By indicating the course of action that was decided to be taken, it was clear that the impugned show cause notice was merely to show that an opportunity was granted notwithstanding the fact that an adverse decision had already been taken by the Municipal Corporation. What remained to be given was merely a post-decisional hearing to the petitioners. Though titled as a show-cause notice, the impugned notice was in fact an order rejecting the hoarding permit. Placing reliance on the decision in H. L. Trehan and ors. vs. Union of India and ors. (1989) 1 SCC 764, it was submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served by the Municipal Corporation of now granting an opportunity of hearing to the Company having decided to revoke the hoarding permit. The hearing if granted, would only be with a view to indicate compliance with the principles of natural justice. It was then submitted that the Municipal Corporation failed to indicate any urgency whatsoever as a reason for failure to grant an opportunity of hearing. While pre-decisional hearing could be dispensed with i