TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition calls in question a notification date 30-3-1988 issued under Section 11 of the Karnataka slum areas (improvement and clearance) Act, 1973 declaring what is known as shaktivelnagar, audugodi slum as a slum clearance area. ( 2 ) AN area measuring nearly 17 guntas underlying sy. No s. 34/3, 34/4, 34/5, 29/1, 29/5 and 29/6 situate at audugodi, Bangalore was declared as a slum by notification dated 4-11-1987 issued under Section 3 of the act aforementioned. By the impugned notification issued in terms of Section 11 of the Act, the said area has now been declared as a 'slum clearance area' by the government on the premise that the most satisfactory method of dealing with the conditions in the said slum is by clearance of the area and demolition of the buildings etc. Erected therein. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-sangha has in this petition assailed the notification inter alia on the ground that the same is in violation of the Provisions of Section 11 of the act and the principles of natural justice, in that no notice whatsoever was issued by the government to the slum dwellers who were bound to be affected by any such declaration. It is stated that nearly 153 families comprising nearly 800 people are living in the said slum for the past 40 years or so and that a declaration made for the clearance of the area without issuing a notice to them or affording them any opportunity of being heard was clearly unfair and arbitrary. ( 4 ) APPEARING for the petitioner Mr. Holla, argued on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in government of Mysore and others v j. v. bhat and others and a judgment of this court in surendra chintaman hansmshet and others v State of Karnataka and others, that a notice to the persons likely to be affected by declaration made under Section 11 was absolutely necessary before any such declaration could be issued by the government. He urged that no such notice admittedly was issued to the slum dwellers by the government at any stage which rendered the impugned notification legally unsustainable. ( 5 ) THE respondent-state has not filed any reply to the amended writ petition nor otherwise controverted the averments made in para 7 of the additional grounds urged therein. He urged that no such notice admittedly was issued to the slum dwellers by the government at any stage which rendered the impugned notification legally unsustainable. ( 5 ) THE respondent-state has not filed any reply to the amended writ petition nor otherwise controverted the averments made in para 7 of the additional grounds urged therein. Government Advocate appearing on its behalf has however produced the official record from which it appears that a notice was issued only to respondent 3, owner of the slum area. Besides a notice is also said to have been pasted at the office of the petitioner-sangha. No notice was at any stage according to the government Advocate sent to the members of the sangha or the slum dwellers as such. ( 6 ) THAT a notice to the owners of the land and building ssituate in a slum area is essential, before a declaration can be issued under Section 11 is apparent from plain reading of the provision itself. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-sangha or its constituent members do not claim any title to the land underlying the slum, nor is it the case of the owner respondent 3 that the super structures belong to him. The question then is whether the members of the sangha who are admittedly in occupation of the said structures and hutments, according to the sangha for the past nearly 40 years, were entitled to a notice and hearing before the issue of the impugned declaration. My answer is in the affirmative. I say so for two reasons firstly because the expression 'building' appearing in the proviso to Section 11 not having been defined, shall have to be given a wider meaning so as to include all buildings and structures temporary or permanent, qua which any person living in the slum may claim any right or interest. When so interpreted those who do not claim any ownership on any building as such but stake a claim to continue occupying a shanty, a hutment or some similar structure for shelter or livelihood would be entitled to a notice on the language employed by the proviso to Section 11 itself. When so interpreted those who do not claim any ownership on any building as such but stake a claim to continue occupying a shanty, a hutment or some similar structure for shelter or livelihood would be entitled to a notice on the language employed by the proviso to Section 11 itself. Secondly because, the power to issue a declaration which has the potential of affecting the rights of third parties like the slum dwellers in the present case shall have to be so interpreted as to be consistent with the principles of natural justice. The obligation to abide by the requirements of natural justice, while exercising any such power must be considered implicit in the nature and the source of power, particularly when its exercise is likely to affect any citizen adversely. The requirement of a notice or opportunity of being heard need not in such situations be specifically provided for by the statute. ( 7 ) IN j. v. bhat's case, supra, the Supreme Court was dealing with a similar Provisions in the now repealed Mysore slum areas (improvement and clearance) Act, 1958. This court had struck down sections 3, 4 and 9 of the said act on the ground of violation of article 19 (1) (f) and Section 12 (1) (b) as violating article 14 of the constitution. Reversing the view taken by this court their lordships held that there was nothing in the Provisions under challenge to suggest that a notice or hearing to the affected persons was excluded. An obligation to adhere to the doctrine of audi alteram partem was according to their lordships, implicit in the very nature of the power exercised by the authorities who are bound to act fairly which in turn implied fairness in the procedure that is followed in the matter of exercise of power. Reading the Provisions thus the Constitution validity of the Provisions was upheld. ( 8 ) TO the same effect is the view taken by urs, j, in surendra chintaman hansmshet case, supra, where it was held that in the very nature of the consequences that follow the publications of a notification the owners of a slum area or the buildings thereon are the persons affected and therefore have a right to make a representation. Any such representation it was held must not only be noticed by the government, but must be shown to have been fairly considered. ( 9 ) I therefore see no reason to confine the right of hearing or notice only to those who own either the land or the buildings in the slum area. If what is important for any such right to accrue is a possible prejudice on account of the issue of a notification, there is no denial that such a prejudice is bound to be suffered even by a person who does not own the land nor even a building in the strict sense of the term but is simply surviving more often than not in sub human conditions, in some hut or such other structure which he may have put up for a shelter. After all how can we forget that a slum takes birth almost invariably by the poorest finding some open space for a small tent, a mud hut, or a wooden or other structure to take shelter in. Merely because such a structure may not be capable of being described as a 'building' can hardly warrant denial of a right which must belong to all no matter there station in life. In the circumstances therefore, an opportunity of being heard to all such persons as were dwelling in the slum area proposed to be declared as a slum clearance area would be necessary even on the minimal requirement of the principles of natural justice. ( 10 ) MR. Datar, learned counsel for respondent 3 however argued that this court need not interfere with the impugned notification on account of the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the same. He urged that the notification in question was issued on 19th march, 1988 and has come to be challenged by way of an amendment to the writ petition brought in the year 1986. He urged that the notification in question was issued on 19th march, 1988 and has come to be challenged by way of an amendment to the writ petition brought in the year 1986. This delay it was urged on the part of the petitioner-sangha was sufficient to disentitle it to any relief in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court particularly when the notification in question was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner-sarigha as also the slum dwellers comprising the same.- ( 11 ) THAT unexplained delay and laches is one of the considerations that weighs heavily with the court and in a case where the delay is not satisfactorily explained or where it shows lack of deligence or contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioner, the court would be entitled to refuse relief on the ground of laches alone cannot be disputed. This is particularly so when on account of intervening delay third party rights have come into existence. The position is however different in the present case. No third party rights have come into existence on account of the notification in question having remained unchallenged in the past. Besides the notification is admittedly in violation of the principles of natural Justice having been issued without any notice to the members of the petitioner-sangha. Super added to all this is the fact that the grievance made in this proceedings is on behalf of the poorest of the poor in the society living in a slum. Denial of relief in such a case on the ground of delay and laches would not in my opinion subserve the ends of justice. I have therefore no hesitation in rejecting the submission made by Mr. Datar, that delay and laches should itself results in the dismissal of this writ petition. ( 12 ) THAT brings me to the next question whether the government should issue fresh and individual notices to each one of the slum dwellers or an opportunity to them through the petitioner-sangha which has espoused their cause would suffice. By an order dated 20-8-1986, the respondent-board was directed to file an affidavit a list of slum dwellers occupying the slum area in question and proposed to be shifted from the same. In compliance, the board has submitted a list of 153 slum dwellers proposed to be shifted from the area. Mr. By an order dated 20-8-1986, the respondent-board was directed to file an affidavit a list of slum dwellers occupying the slum area in question and proposed to be shifted from the same. In compliance, the board has submitted a list of 153 slum dwellers proposed to be shifted from the area. Mr. Holla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also filed an affidavit stating that all those mentioned in the list filed by the 2nd respondent-board are members of the sangha including those occupying premises at si. Nos. 36 and 116, which according to the board were found locked. Mr. Holla submits that in so far as si. No. 36 is concerned the premises was earlier occupied by Smt. Chintamani after whose death her son mari is in occupation of the same. Similarly premises mentioned at si. No. 116 also found locked is with Sri raman son of krishna. Both mari and raman are according to the affidavit filed by Mr. Holla members of the petitioner-sangha. In the circumstances, therefore the sangha is representing the interests of all the slum dwellers sought to be shifted from the slum area in question there by making service of individual notices upon each one of them unnecessary. An opportunity of being heard granted to the sangha representing the slum dwellers would therefore suffice. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the board argued that since passing of fresh orders under Section 11 may take some time, the board may in the meantime be allowed to allot the tenaments constructed in laggare village to other slum dwellers uprooted from other slum areas in and around the city of Bangalore. He urged that the watch and ward of the said tenaments had become a problem for the board and that in case the slum in question is ultimately directed to be cleared those uprooted from there shall be accommodated in similarly constructed tenaments. ( 14 ) MR. Datar on the other hand argued that 153 tenamentsin laggare village had been constructed specifically for accommodating the slum dwellers to be shifted from the audugodi slum. He submitted that the board has already received from his client more than four lakhs of rupees on account of rehabitation of audugodi slum dwellers and that any permission to the board to accommodate other slum dwellers in these tenaments would result in unnecessary complications and confusion. He submitted that the board has already received from his client more than four lakhs of rupees on account of rehabitation of audugodi slum dwellers and that any permission to the board to accommodate other slum dwellers in these tenaments would result in unnecessary complications and confusion. ( 15 ) THERE is substance in the submission made by Mr. Datar. The tenaments in question have been built specifically for accommodating the slum dwellers from audugodi slum and the board has already received a substantial amount from the owner respondent 3. I therefore see no reason why the tenaments should be utilised for accommodating some other slum dwellers merely because the board finds it difficult to arrange the watch and ward of the same. I therefore, reject the request made by the counsel for the board. ( 16 ) IN the result, this writ petition succeeds and is here by allowed. Notification dated 30-3-1988 published in government gazette on 26-5-1988 is quashed and the petitioner permitted to file its objections if any before the government within four weeks from today. In case any such objections are filed by the petitioner-sangha or by its members individually the same shall be considered by the government and fresh orders in accordance with law passed on the same within three months from the date the objections are received. Needless to say that in case no objections are filed within the time granted, the government shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders on the subject without any further notice or opportunity to either the sangha or its constituent members for the purpose. ( 17 ) IN the meantime and till the issue of the fresh orders by the government interim direction's given on 24-11-1995 shall continue to remain in force. No costs. --- *** --- .