Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 223 (RAJ)

Chand Mal Chhipar v. State of Rajasthan

2003-02-11

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 20.8.1991 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 10.12.1990 (Annex. 6) passed by the respondent No. 2 learned Minister, Local-self-Government, 5 Rajasthan Jaipur by which the revision petition flied by the respondent No. 4 Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Amet under section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959") was allowed and the order dated 28.4.1981 (Annex. 3) was set aside, be quashed and set aside. 2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows : The petitioner purchased the plots on 27.10.1971 from one Mohammed Hanif, the successor of Anar Mohammad, who also purchased the shares of his two brothers vide registered sale deeds. The petitioner wanted to make construction on the above land and therefore, he sought permission and the permission was accorded to him by the respondent No. 3, Municipal Board, Amet through order dated 6.5.1975 (Annex. 1). However, the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Amet (respondent No. 4) finding that the said order of the Municipal Board dated 6.5.1975 (Annex. 1) granting permission to the petitioner, was not in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1959, put a note of dissent and copy of the note of dissent is marked as Annex. 1-A. The note of dissent of the respondent No. 4 Executive Officer was examined by the State Government under section 68(3) of the Act of 1959 and the same was rejected and the order of the Municipal Board dated 6.5.1975 (Annex. 1) granting permission to the petitioner, was upheld by the Director, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide order dated 10.12.1976 (Annex. 2). However, on application having been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 Executive Officer, the Director, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur through order dated 18.1.1977 stayed his own order, but the Director, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur through order dated 28.4.1981 (Annex. 3) vacated the stay order dated 18.1.1977 and directed that compliance of the order dated 10.12.1976 (Annex. 2) be made. Thereafter, a revision under section 300 of the Act of 1959 was filed by the respondent No. 4 Executive Officer against the order of the Director, Local Bodies dated 28.4.1981 (Annex. 3) vacated the stay order dated 18.1.1977 and directed that compliance of the order dated 10.12.1976 (Annex. 2) be made. Thereafter, a revision under section 300 of the Act of 1959 was filed by the respondent No. 4 Executive Officer against the order of the Director, Local Bodies dated 28.4.1981 (Annex. 3) and a copy of the revision is marked as Annex. 1. Notice of that revision was received by the petitioner on 3.12.1990 and the date of hearing in that revision was 4.12.1990 at 3.00 p.m. before the learned Minister, Local-self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Copy of the notice is marked as Annex. The further case of the petitioner is that in compliance of the notice Annex. 5, his counsel Shri-Manohar Kothari appeared in the office of the learned Minister, Local-self Government on 4.12.1990 to attend the hearing, but he was told that the learned Minister had proceeded out on tour. But, it appears that the revision was heard on 4.12.1990 by the learned Minister and the impugned order Annex. 6 dated 10.12.1990 was passed by the respondent No. 2 learned Minister. In this writ petition, the impugned order Annex. 6 has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and one of the grounds is that the date of hearing in the revision was 4.12.1990 and counsel for the petitioner appeared on that date before the respondent No. 2 learned Minister, but he was not heard and the impugned order Annex. 6 was to passed by the respondent No. 2 learned Minister without hearing the petitioner and thus, it is violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the lean- 3d counsel appearing for the respondents and gene through the mate 'lal available on record. 4. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and in that reply the allegations in respect of hearing that on 4.12.1990, counsel for the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 2 learned Minister, but he was not heard, have neither been denied nor nothing has been said on these aspects meanings thereby the case of the petitioner that the revision was decided by the respondent No. 2 learned Minister without hearing the petitioner, appears to be just and reasonable one. 5. Apart from this, in the impugned order Annex. 5. Apart from this, in the impugned order Annex. 6, there is no mention of the fact that on behalf of the petitioner anybody appeared or the petitioner did not appear in spite of service of notice of revision or proceedings were taken against him ex-parte. On these aspects, the impugned order Annex. 6 is silent. 6. Thus, in the above circumstances, it can be concluded that the principles of natural justice have been clearly violated in the present case as before passing the impugned order Annex. 6, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and thus, the impugned order (Annex. 6) cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. So far as other arguments of the petitioner about maintainability of revision petition under section 300 of the Act of 1959 and instead of revision, appeal under section 170(12) of the Act of 1959 should have been preferred, are concerned, they all should be taken before the respondent No. 2 learned Minister and for that, the petitioner is at liberty to file his written submissions before the respondent No. 2 learned Minister and the respondent No. 2 learned Minister would be advised to pass a fresh order on the revision petition, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is alloy, ed and the impugned order Annex. 6 dated 10.12.1990 passed by the respondent No. 2 learned Minister, Local-self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur is quashed and set aside and the case is remanded back to the respondent No. 2 learned Minister with a direction to pass a fresh order on the revision petition filed under section 300 of the Act of 1959 by the respondent No. 4 Executive Officer, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible . The parties are directed to appear before the respondent No. 2 learned Minister on 10.3,2003. The petitioner is at liberty to file his written submissions and raise his all points and objections before the respondent No. 2 learned Minister on or in for a that date and the respondent No. 2 learned Minister shall decide the same afresh on merits, in accordance with law. 9. The petitioner is at liberty to file his written submissions and raise his all points and objections before the respondent No. 2 learned Minister on or in for a that date and the respondent No. 2 learned Minister shall decide the same afresh on merits, in accordance with law. 9. Till the matter is decided afresh by the respondent No. 2 learned Minister, the stay order granted by this Court on 29.8.1991 shall remain in force.No order as to costs. *******