JUDGMENT :

1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of the following:

(i) Notice No. JMC/CEO/785 dated 06.01.2021 issued by respondent No. 1 purportedly under Section 248 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 2000 (for short ‘the Act’) whereby the petitioners have been called upon to show cause within a period of 48 hours as to why the building permission granted to them on 05.08.2017 may not be cancelled.

(ii) Order No. JMC/CEO/561-67 dated 08.01.2021 issued by respondent No. 1 whereby the building permission granted to the petitioners has been cancelled and sealing of the premises has been ordered.

2. Impugned order dated 08.01.2021 (supra) is assailed by the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that, the impugned show cause notice was never served upon the petitioners, nor were they given any opportunity of being heard.

3. Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are predicated primarily on the premise that as per the report of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu dated 04.01.2021, the petitioners have raised construction on the land which includes the State land admeasuring 3 marlas under khasra No. 94 situate at Sidhra, Jammu. However, neither the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, who purports to have conducted the demarcation ever associated the petitioners in the said process, nor the report of demarcation was ever put to the petitioners by respondent No. 1 for objections. Learned senior counsel has also raised the issue of jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Act to issue the show cause notice and cancel the permission granted four years back, more so, when the same has already been acted upon and construction raised in accordance therewith.

4. Mr. Raina, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents has opposed the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioners were well aware about the show cause notice which in their absence was pasted on the conspicuous part of the offending structure. He argues that apart from encroaching upon the State land admeasuring 3 marlas, the petitioners have also committed various violations and, therefore, invited action under the provisions of Control of Building Operations Act. They were, thus, put on show cause notice to which the petitioners also submitted their reply. It is on consideration of the objections of the petitioners, the impugned order for cancellation of the permission and sealing of the premises was made.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is seen that the impugned show cause notice was issued on 06.01.2021 and as per the report of the process server of the respondents, the same was pasted on the subject premises on 06.01.2021 itself. The impugned order of cancellation of the building permission and sealing of the premises was made on 08.01.2021.

6. Even if we were to agree with the stand of the respondents that the show cause notice was, indeed, pasted on 06.01.2021 itself, yet, it remains to be seen as to whether one day’s time to the petitioners to respond to the show cause notice could, by any stretch of reasoning, be termed as reasonable and fair opportunity to the petitioners to submit their explanation/reply. The answer to this question has to be no and emphatic no.

7. We may not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not aware of pasting of the notice till 08.01.2021, yet we are of the considered view that giving a day’s time to the petitioners to respond to the show cause notice was only an eye wash and does not comply with the principles of natural justice. The petitioners have been deprived of reasonable opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. That renders the impugned order cancellation of building permission and sealing of the premises bad