Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 387 (KAR)

SUBASH OATTA KINI v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

1988-08-22

H.G.BALAKRISHNA

body1988
BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, dated 5-11-1985 as well as the order of the rent Controller dated 1-9-1983 vide annexures B and C, respectively. ( 2 ) THE material facts are the petitioner and Respondent-4 are members of a joint family and the house bearing No. TMC. 1634-A situated at Murlidhar Math road, Karwar is the joint family property. On 18-7-1983 the house fell vacant and respondent 4 intimated the vacancy to the Rent Controller, Karwar who, in turn notified the same for allotment. According to the petitioner after the demise of his father, the relationship between the petitioner, his mother and sisters with respondent-4 became strained. The petitioner applied for allotment for self- occupation in his letter dated 25-7-1985 addressed to the Rent Controller, Karwar, vide Annexure A. However, strangely enough, Respondent-4 who is the brother of the petitioner gave his consent for allotment in favour of Respondent-3 and not in favour of the petitioner. The Rent controller, did not issue any notice to the petitioner before passing an order of allotment in favour of Respondent-3 and the petitioner was not heard. The order of the Rent Controller is at Annexure-B. ( 3 ) AN appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order before the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impugned order by his own order under Annexure C, ( 4 ) IN the back-drop of these facts, the petitioner has urged the following ground in this Writ Petition :"the order of allotment passed by the Rent Controller is unjustified and unsutainable for the reason that the rent Controller did not notify and hear the petitioner before proceeding to pass an order of allotment and this, according to the petitioner, is an infringement of principles of natural justice. " ( 5 ) A perusal of the order of the Rent controller as well as the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the records of the proceedings, confirm the fact that no notice was issued to the petitioner by the Rent Controller and the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order vide annexure B came to be passed. ( 6 ) IN these circumstances, the question which is presented for determination is whether the order of allotment which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner deserves to be quashed. ( 7 ) I have absolutely no hesitation in my mind in the light of the facts which are beyond dispute that the order of the Rent Controller cannot be sustained. It is a clear instance of violation of principles of natural justice. Since the petitioner is an applicant, certainly he is an interested person and he should have been heard by the Rent Controller before taking a decision on the question of allotment. The denial of right of audience amounts to denial of a legal right which is vested in the petitioner. The right is in the nature of a right to be heard. ( 8 ) I have been always observing in cases where the right of hearing has been denied that there is a famous principle expressed in simple language and that is "he who desides must hear". The principle is apposite to the facts of the case. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I allow this Writ Petition and quash the impugned orders, namely, the order dated 1-9-1983 of the Rent Controller, Karwar, passed in No. GB/ron/sr. 2/83-84 and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, uttara Kannada Karwar, dated 5-11-1985 in case No CB. RCN Appeal/sr. 1/83- 84, Annexures B and C respectively. direct the Rent Controller, Karwar, to fix a date of hearing, notify the petitioner and afford him a reasonable opportunity of hearing along with other persons legally interested in the matter of allotment of the petition-premises. This case shall be called on 23-9-1988 by the Rent Controller, for hearing and disposal of the application for allotment of the premises afresh. ( 10 ) THE office is directed to communicate this order within ten days from the date of receipt of this order. Writ Petition Allowed. --- *** --- .