Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Anju Bala - Appellant
Versus
East Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1657 of 2021
Decided On : 08-02-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners directed to remove alleged illegal structure. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners argue lack of personal hearing. (Para 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 3. court observes procedural deficiency in hearings. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court orders the remittance of the matter for re-hearing. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
CM APPL.4738/2021(Exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1657/2021 & CM APPL.4739/2021(stay)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioners impugn order/letter dated 06.01.2021 whereby petitioners have been directed to remove the alleged illegal structure from the land in question within one month from the receipt of the notice.
3. Order dated 06.01.2021 states that the same is in compliance of directions contained in order dated 26.08.2019 in WP(C) 2365/2016 of the High Court.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that petitioners has been in occupation of the subject land for several decades. He further submits that by order dated 26.08.2019 in WP(C) 2365/2016, the Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondents to remove the encroachment in accordance with Law, Rules, Regulations and Government Policy, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the owners/occupiers of the super-structure.
5. Learned Senior Counsel submits though a show-cause notice was issued which was duly replied to, no hearing was afforded to the petitioners.
6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, under instructions, submits that the subject orders deal with the contentions of the petitioners as stated in their replies, however he concedes that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioners.
8. In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the order, since no personal hearing has been granted to the petitioners which was mandated by order dated 26.08.2019 in WP(C) 2365/2016, the impugned order is set aside.
9. The matter is remitted to the respondents for granting a hearing to Petitioners consequent to the show-cause notice issued to them and thereafter to pass a fresh order.
10. It is expected that the proceedings shall be finalized by the respondents expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from today.
11. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
12. Petition along with pending applications are disposed of in the above terms.
13. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
The necessity of affording a personal hearing in administrative proceedings is critical to upholding procedural fairness and natural justice.
Procedural fairness requires that parties must be given a personal hearing before administrative actions, failing which the orders may be set aside.
Failure to grant a personal hearing as mandated by a previous court order can lead to the setting aside of an impugned order.
The court emphasized the necessity for a timely and reasoned decision on representations affecting property rights, ensuring the petitioners receive a personal hearing.
A litigant's right to be heard is fundamental; a dismissal of an appeal without hearing the petitioner, especially due to lack of representation from the deceased advocate, is unsustainable.
Failure to submit requisite documents within the specified time frame may be reconsidered if the petitioner subsequently produces the necessary documentation.
Unauthorized structures on government land without permission unprotected; writ jurisdiction bars disputed pre-datum facts; strict judicial stance against illegal constructions, no sympathy for viola....
The court affirmed the necessity of providing a fair opportunity to parties in administrative proceedings before making decisions that affect their rights, emphasizing protection against ex parte ord....
Timely decision-making by public authorities on representations is essential, with courts emphasizing compliance with statutory obligations.
Ex-parte order set aside - Matter is remitted to the Assessing authority to pass a fresh assessment order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
