Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The Chief Executive Officer, GMDA on 3.5.2002 issued a notice to the petitioner No. 2 directing to remove/demolish the unauthorized construction of the 6th and 7th floor as well as the cantilever as the same were constructed in violation of the 1985 Act as well as the building bye-laws and zoning regulation. The writ petitioner on receipt of the said notice informed Chief Executive Officer, GMDA on 6.5.2002 that they obtained the permission for construction from GMC and for construction of the 6th to 8th floor they obtained the judgment of the standing appellate committee and, therefore, there was no unauthorized construction. It was further informed that there is no violation of approved drawing regarding cantilever. The Town Planner, GMDA, thereafter on 4.10.2002 informed the petitioner No. 2 that a routine inspection of the multistoried building will be conducted by the authority and, therefore, asked him to submit copies of the building permission and approved drawing on the basis of which the construction was made and informed him that in the event of failure to co-operate with the authority as well as to submit the said building permission and approved drawing within the stipulated time and if continued to make construction of the building deviating from the building bye-laws and permission issued to him, the authority will initiate action like demolition, etc., as per the 1985 Act without any further notice.

16. Referring to Section 88 of the 1985 Act, the learned senior counsel has further submitted that Section 88 stipulates giving a reasonable opportunity to show cause to the owner/occupier, manager or the person concerned, as to why an order for demolition under Section 88 should not be issued. But in the instant case, according to the learned senior counsel, no such notice was issued before issuance of the order dated 30.5.2006, thereby violating the statutory provision contained in Section 88 of the said Act. Referring to the order dated 30.5.2006 issued by the GMDA which has a mentioned about show cause notices dated 2.2.2001, 5.9.2001, 18.2.2002 and 4.10.2002, the learned senior counsel has submitted that it is evident from the communication dated 18.2.2002 sent by the petitioner in reply to the GMDA's order dated 18.2.2002 to remove construction for alleged failure to comply with the notices dated 2.2.2001 and 5.9.2001 that the petitioners have specifically stated that they did not receive any notices dated 2.2.2001 and 5.9.2001. Regarding the other notices dates 18.2.2002 as well as 4.10.2002 as mentioned in the order of demolition dated 30.5.2006, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the said notices are not the show cause notices as required to be issued under Section 88 of the 1985 Act before issuance of notice of demolition and in fact communication dated 18.2.2002 is a direction to remove construction and 4.10.2002 was a notice regarding the inspection of the multistoried building. The learned senior counsel further submits that even assuming that the notices dated 2.2.2001 and 5.2.2001 were served on the petitioners then also it is evident from the said notices that the petitioners were not informed as to how they have violated the approved building plan and also as to how the construction is unauthorized. That apart the grounds on which the order under Section 88 of the 1985 Act has been passed by the GMDA on 30.5.2006 have never been informed by the said authority to the petitioner nor in any of the earlier notices, though under the provision of the 1985 Act, the GMDA before issuing any order under Section 88 is statutorily bound to inform the petitioners about the deviations and the nature of unauthorized construction so as to give him the opportunity to make representation effectively and completely against such notices. According to the learned senior counsel the requirement of issuing notice and filing of show cause is not an empty formality and same must be an effective opportunity, which can be treated to be effective if the petitioners are given the details of deviations and unauthorized construction. But in the instant case, according to the learned Counsel senior counsel, the same having not been given, the order of demolition dated 30.5.2006 issued by the GMDA under Section 88 of the 1985 Act is illegal being violative of the basic principles of natural justice as stipulated in under Section 88 itself.

17. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that it cannot be said that no prejudice was caused to the petitioners for non-issuance of such show cause notice as the petitioners in the reply dated 6.5.2002 against the order dated 3.5.2002 issued by the GMC authority to remove unauthorized construction of 6th and 7th floor has given an explanation regarding such alleged unauthorized construction of cantilever and had that opportunity been given the petitioners, they could have explained the entire situation to satisfy the GMD authority and in that case the said authority would not have issued the order of demolition. The learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that the order of demolition issued by the Chief Executive Officer, GMDA dated 30.5.2006 is also illegal on both the grounds, firstly, the GMC has granted the permission for construction up to 8th floor and secondly, on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice as embodied in the Section 88 of the 1985 Act.

23. Referring to the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners regarding the violation of natural justice and non-compliance of the requirement of issuance of notice before passing the order under Section 88 of the 1985 Act, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the petitioners at least after receipt of the order dated 18.2.2002 came to know that there, is a proceeding relating to the unauthorized construction of the building and the requirement of Section 88 of the 1985 Act being not to take any action of demolition without prior intimation to the owner of the building, such requirement was fulfilled at least on 18.2.2002 and the petitioners having replied that there was no unauthorized construction and the construction was made pursuant to the permission granted by GMC authority on 3.2.2000 knew about the allegation that the petitioners were making unauthorized construction, therefore, it is not the requirement of law that each of the deviations have to be brought to the notice of the petitioner before issuing the order for demolition under Section 88 of the 1985 Act more so when the allegation is that the construction from part of 5th floor and above is unauthorized, being without any permission and without any approved plan. In any case according to the learned Additional Advocate General no prejudice was caused to the petitioners, as they knew about such proceeding of demolition of unauthorized construction, as well as the grounds thereof.