Back
2007 Supreme(HP) 389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Hon'ble Judges: Rajiv Sharma, J.
Ramesh Kumar Mahajan – Appellants
Vs.
State of H.P. and Anr. – Respondent
Decided On: 05.10.2007
The importance of natural justice in administrative orders and the requirement for specific and intelligible allegations in show cause notices.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Unauthorized Construction - H.P. Municipal Act, 1994, Section 211(1)(a), Section 211(5), Section 212 - The court discussed the provisions of the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994, particularly Section 211(1)(a), Section 211(5), and Section 212, and emphasized the importance of natural justice in administrative orders. The court found that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to respond to the allegations, and the findings recorded by the authorities were contrary to the record.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was issued notices for unauthorized construction under Section 211(1)(a) and Section 211(5) of the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994. After a series of orders and appeals, the petitioner challenged the judgment, alleging non-compliance with the principle of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to respond to the allegations, and the findings recorded by the authorities were contrary to the record.
Issues: Non-compliance with the principle of natural justice in administrative orders.
Ratio Decidendi: Allegations in the show cause notice must be specific and not vague, lacking details or unintelligible. The noticee must be given a proper opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in the show cause notice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the judgment dated 23rd June, 2006 was quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the matter afresh on the basis of the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notices dated 8th September, 2003 and 12th September, 2003.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
1. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No. 2 had issued notice to the petitioner on 8th September, 2003 under Section 211 (i)(a) of the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994 for carrying out unauthorized construction. The respondent No. 2 issued another notice to the petitioner dated 12th September, 2003 under Section 211 (5) of the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994 whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause within 24 hours from the receipt of the notice that why a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further for non-compliance of the notice and continuous of work, Rs. 50/- per day be not imposed. The petitioner submitted reply to the notice dated 12th September, 2003 stating therein that due to heavy rain during the month of August, 2003, some cracks had developed in the walls and existing slab and those cracks were repaired by him. The Executive Officer of the respondent No. 2-Council directed the petitioner to demolish the unauthorized construction of toilet Within seven days from the receipt of the notice. He preferred an appeal under Section 212 of the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994 against the order dated 29th September, 2003 passed by the Executive Officer of the respondent No. 2-council before the learned District Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba. The learned District Judge Chamba vide judgment dated 6th July, 2004 allowed the appeal and the impugned order dated 29th September, 2003 was set aside and the matter was remanded/remitted to the Municipal Council, Dalhousie with the direction to pass a fresh and speaking order after affording effective and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner after the judgment dated 6.7.2004 filed fresh replies to the show cause notices dated 8th September, 2003 and 12th September, 2003. Thereafter the Administrative Officer passed the order on 4th July, 2005. He ordered that: (i) the unauthorized toilet constructed on khasra No. 725/2 be demolished; (ii) a case for encroachment on Government land be filed against the defaulter within a period of one week and compliance be reported to him; and (iii) funds deposited by the petitioner for sewerage connection for unauthorized toilet be returned to him forthwith. In sequel to the order passed by the Administrative Order dated 4th July, 2005, the Executive Officer of the respondent No. 2-council passed the order on 8th July, 2005 directing the demolition of unauthorized construction of toilet within a period of one month, failing which the same was to be demolished by the Municipal Council.
1.2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8th July, 2005, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba under Section 212 of the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Chamba on 23rd June, 2006.
2. Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the order dated 4th July, 2005, 8th July, 2005 and the judgment dated 23rd June, 2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba are not sustainable in the eyes of Jaw for non-compliance of the principle of natural justice.
3. The learned Advocate General and Mr. Adarsh Vashist, Advocate have supported the orders dated 4th July, 2005, 8th July, 2005 and judgment dated 23rd June, 2006.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The first notice was issued to the petitioner on 8th September, 2003 under Section 211 (i)(a) of the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994 and the second notice was issued to him under Section 211 (5) of the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994. He had filed the reply to the notice dated 12th September, 2003 and adverse order was passed against the petitioner on 29th September, 2003 by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Dalshousie which was set aside by the learned District Judge on 6th July, 2004. The petitioner had filed the fresh replies to the notices dated 8th September, 2003 and 12th September, 2003
