SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Dinesh Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1264 of 2021
Decided On : 22-10-2021




Procedural fairness mandates that a practitioner must receive proper notice and an opportunity for a personal hearing before penalties are imposed.

Headnote:(A) The applicable law pertains to procedures for issuing show cause notices and the right to a personal hearing in administrative actions against professionals. The petitioner challenged the order debarred by three municipal corporations, arguing no misrepresentation and lack of proper notice.

(B) Procedural fairness requires an opportunity for personal hearing before imposing sanctions.

(C) The urban planning regulations necessitate accurate disclosures, but the digital tools used introduce complexity in determining misrepresentations.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an architect, contested an order debarring him from submitting plans based on alleged inaccuracies regarding property coordinates, which he argued were automated inputs.

Findings of Court:
The previous order was vacated and treated as a show cause notice, allowing the petitioner a chance to respond.

Issues: The court addressed whether proper notice was given and the requirement for a hearing prior to sanction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized procedural fairness and the need for a fresh hearing, clarifying the previous order's status as a mere show cause notice.

Result: Impugned order set aside; an opportunity for a personal hearing granted.

Table of Content
1. debarment from submitting building applications. (Para 1)
2. petitioner's arguments against debarring. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. court's procedural considerations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. final order of the court. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Petitioner impugns communication order dated 30.12.2020, whereby petitioner an Architect has been debarred from signing/submitting building plan applications, completion certificate applications as well as layout plan applications with the three municipal corporations; namely - South Delhi Municipal Corporation, North Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal Corporation for period of one year.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not made any misrepresentation and as such there was no cause to take any action against the petitioner. She submits that the coordinates of the property are automatically picked up by the mobile application set up by the respondent corporation and as such the contentions that the petitioner had incorrectly stated the distance between the property for which sanction was sought and a protective monument, is incorrect.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the show cause notice which was issued was only with regard to revocation of the building plan and not with regard to debarring the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 contains certain factual errors for which a response/explanation would be required.

5. Digital copy of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 be furnished to learned counsel for respondent no. 1 within two days.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 SDMC under instructions from Mr. Sanjeev Arora, Assistant Engineer, SDMC submits that since one of the grounds raised by the petitioner is with regard to non issuance of a show cause notice and non-grant of an opportunity of personal hearing, respondent-Corporation is willing to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

7. He submits that the impugned order dated 30.12.2020 may be treated as a show cause notice to the petitioner who may file his response thereto and thereafter, after grant of an opportunity of a personal hearing, fresh order shall be passed.

8. In view of the above, impugned order dated 30.12.2020 is set aside. The impugned order dated 30.12.2020 shall be treated as a show cause notice to the petitioner. Petitioner shall file a response to the show cause notice within four weeks from today and thereafter Respondent-Corporation shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall pass a fresh speaking order.

9. It is clarified that this would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The contention raised by respondent no. 2 in its counter affidavit shall not be treated as having been admitted by the petitioner and petitioner would have an opportunity of responding/explaining the averments contained therein in his reply to the show cause notice to the Corporation.

10. Thereafter, respondent-Corporation shall pass a speaking order without being influenced of anything stated in this order on merits.

11. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top