Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2000 Supreme(Raj) 1278

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR BENCH
Rajesh Balia, Mohd.Yamin, JJ.
Chairman Municipal Board and Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 1368, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407. 1454. 1456, 1457, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1498, 1499, 1500, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1532, 1533 and 1534 of 1999.
Decided On : 10-07-2000

Advocates:
For the Applicant:Kailash Joshi, Advocate.
For the State: R.P. Vyas, Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent:Chaitanya Gahlot, Advocate.

The principle of natural justice requires that parties should be given an opportunity to be heard before a mandamus is issued for alternative accommodation.

Headnote:
Mandamus - Alternative Accommodation - The court held that the petitions should have been decided after issuing notices to the appellants and giving them an opportunity to file their reply and be heard. The judgment under appeal was set aside, and the matter was to be decided afresh after issuing notice to respondents.
Fact of the Case:

The petitions filed by the respondents were disposed of by the learned Single Judge with directions to the appellants and injunction not to disturb the petitioners until alternative accommodation is made available to them, without issuing notice to the appellants.
Finding of the Court:

The appeals deserve to be allowed as the mandamus was issued to provide alternative accommodation without giving the appellants an opportunity to be heard.
Issues: Failure to issue notice to the appellants before issuing mandamus for alternative accommodation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants should have been given an opportunity to file their reply and be heard before the mandamus for alternative accommodation was issued.
Final Decision: The judgment under appeal was set aside, and the matter was to be decided afresh after issuing notice to respondents. Status quo was to continue until appropriate orders were made by the learned Single Judge.

JUDGMENT

1. - In all these appeals. detailed in the schedule the petitions filed by the respondents have been disposed of by the learned Single Judge with certain directions to the appellants and injunction in respect of not to disturb the petitioners from the place in question until alternative accommodation is made available to them. All these petitions have been disposed of with such directions without issuing notice to the appellants who were subjected to this mandamus. These facts are admitted.

2. In these circumstances, all the appeals deserve to be allowed on this ground alone that when a mandamus has been issued to appellants to provide alternative accommodation the petitions filed by the respondents-petitioners ought to have been decided only after Issuing notices to the appellants and giving them an opportunity to file their reply and hearing.

3. It is not a case where the appellants have merely been directed to decide the representations for providing alternative accommodation, but entails a mandamus to grant an alterative accommodation before they are shifted from the present place. Appeals are accordingly allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside and the matter may now be placed before the appropriate Bench to be decided afresh after issuing notice to respondents In the petition Status quo as it exists today shall continue till appropriate orders made by learned Single Judge on such request in the petition.Special appeal allowed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document