The judgment emphasizes the requirement for public bodies to act fairly and observe principles of natural justice before raising demands or orders against individuals.

1. - Heard learned counsels.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the Annex. 10 dated 15.1.2005 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Udaipur to the petitioner demanding a sum of Rs. 15,04,173.20 on account of alleged construction of property without proper sanction obtained by the petitioner.

3. Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the construction of the said property was initiated by the petitioner they applied to the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur on 19.5.2003 as the said area fall within the jurisdiction of UIT, Udaipur prior to 1.1.2004. The respondent UIT, however did not issue any sanction or approval of the said map for undertaking said construction and, therefore, according to the provisions of Section 73(8) of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959, on account of deemed permission envisaged under the said provision of Section 73(8) of the Act the petitioner started raising construction. Thereafter when annex.10 impugned notice/order was issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Udaipur, demanding the aforesaid sum of Rs. 15 lacs and odd the petitioner approached this Court and by the interim order dated 10.5.2005 the petitioner was allowed to make all finishing work without altering the building itself. He submits that when the jurisdiction or the area in question was transferred to the Municipal Council w.e.f. 1.1.2004, the petitioner approached the respondent Municipal Council also by way of representations Annex.4 dated 11.6.2004 and thereafter again by Annex.6 dated 4.7.2004. In the meanwhile, the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Udaipur vide Annex.5 dated 26.3.2004 asked the petitioner to appear before him along with the requisite documents and to obtain the proper sanction for construction and in the meanwhile not to undertake any further construction.

4. According to the petitioner, he also applied in the prescribed form for sanction of necessary permission vide Annex.7 application form dated 7.7.2004 in which also the petitioner made it clear that the construction was in progress under the deemed permission as per the provisions of Section 73(8) of the UIT Act, 1959. Thereafter when the petitioner again approached the Municipal Council by way of letters dated 15.9.2004 Annex.8 and dated 12.1.2005 Annex.9, the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Udaiur issued impugned notice/order dated 15.1.2005 rejecting the said request letter of the petitioner dated 12.1.2005 and demanding the said sum of Rs. 15,04,173.20 as regularisation charges.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

6. Mr. Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council has urged that the petitioner could not have raised construction under the provisions of deemed permission as per the provisions of Section 73(8) of the UIT Act and moreover since the petitioner himself applied and approached to the Municipal Council for regularisation, the Municipal Council was justified in demanding the said regularisation charges to the tune of Rs. 15,04,173.20. He has further submitted that there were deviation in the plan submitted for approval and the construction raised by the petitioner as well as two maps produced by the petitioner before the UIT, Udaipur and Municipal Council, Udaipur.

7. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record.

8. The provisions of UIT Act, 1959 Section 73(8) contains a provision for raising construction after application for permission to raise construction is made and the Trust neglects or omits for one month or to grant or to reject the application for the reasons to be recorded by which the applicant may, by a written communication, call the attention of the Trust to omission or neglect and if such omission or neglect continues for a further period of 15 days from the date of such communication, the Trust shall be deemed to have permitted the proposed work absolutely and such w