Gujarat High Court
Hasmukhbhai Kanubhai Barot & 9 vs Collector on 16 November, 2016
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/SCA/6372/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6372 of 2016
==========================================================
HASMUKHBHAI KANUBHAI BAROT & 9....Petitioner(s)
Versus
COLLECTOR, MAHISAGAR & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UDAYAN P VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No.110
MR RUTVIJ OZA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SNEHA A JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 16/11/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned senior advocate with Mr. Udayan P. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Rutvij Oza, learned AGP for respondent no.1, Ms. Sneha Joshi, learned advocate for respondent no.2 and Mr. Dhaval Barot, learned advocate for the newly added respondents no.3 and 4.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.03.2016 passed by respondent no.1 under the relevant provisions of Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the impugned order is passed without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. On bare reading of the order, it appears that the application came to be filed by respondents no.3, Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Thu Nov 17 00:11:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/6372/2016 ORDER 4 and one other on 14.03.2016, which was acted upon by the learned District Collector with utmost attention and on the very next day, the impugned order is passed without putting the petitioners to notice.
4. Following the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of H.H. Parmar vs. Collector, Rajkot reported in 1979(2) GLR 97, the impugned order therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside only on that short ground. It is clarified that the District Collector may have power under section 258 of the Act or even under section 6(A) of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976. However, no such power can be exercised and the petitioners who are directly and vitally affected by such order is to be put to notice and opportunity of hearing is to be given which in opinion of this Court is bare minimum requirement.
5. In light of the aforesaid therefore, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the proceedings of application filed by respondents no.3 and 4 and one Pathan Navabkhan is restored to the file of District Collector, Mahisagar. The petitioners shall appear before the District Collector on 25.11.2016 and file their reply to the application. The District Collector, Mahisagar shall hear the petitioners as well as respondent no.3 & 4 and the one another objector who were applicants before Collector and pass Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu Nov 17 00:11:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/6372/2016 ORDER appropriate fresh order after taking into consideration all contentions that may be raised by the parties in accordance with law and pass fresh reasoned order without in any manner influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order. It is expected that the parties shall cooperate learned District Collector, Mahisagar, in the hearing. It is however clarified that the impugned order is quashed only on the sole ground of nonhearing and this Court has therefore not expressed any opinion on the application dated 14.03.2016 filed by respondents no.3, 4 and one other person.
6. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Notice discharged. Order of status quo granted earlier stands vacated. D.S. permitted.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) bjoy Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Thu Nov 17 00:11:10 IST 2016