Gauhati High Court
Sudama Devi vs Guwahati Municipal Corporation And 3 ... on 25 April, 2022
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010074012022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2677/2022
SUDAMA DEVI
W/O- SIPAHI RAI, R/O- N.S.C.B. ROAD (KUMARPARA), FATASIL,
GUWAHATI-19, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND 3 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-
781001.
2:THE COMMISSIONER
GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI- 781001.
3:THE VETERINARY OFFICER
GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI- 781001.
4:THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 06
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
25.04.2022 Heard Mr. M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, GMC for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3; and Mr. K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 4.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the family of the petitioner has been residing in Fatasil Ambari locality of Guwahati City for more than 50 years by keeping a number of cows in cowshed located in their house premises. The petitioner is aggrieved by a notice dated 28.03.2022 served upon her by the respondent no. 3, whereby, the petitioner has been asked to remove the cowshed maintained in her house premises within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of the said notice or else, necessary action would be taken under the provisions of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971. The notice has further outlined the reasons for issuance of the order for removal of the cowshed.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging inter alia that no opportunity to prior show-cause and of hearing was afforded to her prior to issuance of the notice dated 28.03.2022 directing removal of the cowshed from the premises of the petitioner and as such, notice dated 28.03.2022 is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has submitted that no further action in consequence of the said notice dated 28.03.2022 has been taken till date.
4. Mr. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, GMC has submitted that the notice dated 28.03.2022 itself has contained reasons as to why the cowshed maintained by the petitioner in her premises is required to be removed.
5. Be that as it may. On perusal of the notice dated 28.03.2022, without entering into the merits of the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the Page No.# 3/3 considered view that since no notice to show-cause mentioning the grounds was issued prior to issuance of the notice dated 28.03.2022 directing removal of the cowshed maintained in the premises of the petitioner, the petitioner shall submit a reply to the said notice dated 28.03.2022 within a period of 2 [two] weeks showing reasons as to why the petitioner may be allowed to continue with the cowshed in her premises by treating the notice dated 28.03.2022 as a notice to show-cause. On receipt of such show-cause reply, the competent authority in the GMC shall consider the same and after due consideration, shall pass a speaking order within a period of 2 [two] weeks from the date of receipt of the show-cause reply from the end of the petitioner. It is accordingly ordered. It is provided that till such speaking order is passed by the competent authority in the GMC, no coercive action in terms of the notice dated 28.03.2022, as indicated therein, shall be taken against the petitioner.
6. With the observations made and the directions given above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant