Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3069 (ALL)

Gupta Automobiles v. Union of India

2014-10-07

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The petitioners are licensees of a retail outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation at village Pipra, Tehsil and Post Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur since 1977. Their grievance is that the Power Grid Corporation is laying electric lines, which are passing over the land of the petitioners and it was apprehended that as a result, the petitioners would face a threat of cancellation of their license. 2. In an earlier writ proceeding, a Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 26 March 2014, issued directions to the District Magistrate to consider the grievance of the petitioners, having due regard to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 more particularly, Section 16 thereof. 3. From the records, it appears that the District Magistrate, constituted a three member Committee on 28 May 2014, consisting of the Chief Revenue Officer, Gorakhpur, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sahjanwan, Gorakhpur and Tehsildar, Sahjanwan, Gorakhpur. The order-sheet of the proceedings before the District Magistrate, which is annexed at Annexure No.1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners, indicates that the hearing of the proceedings was fixed on several dates and lastly on 27 August 2014, when the further hearing was adjourned to 10 September 2014. In the meantime, the petitioners had also submitted two representations on 4 August 2014 and 22 August 2014. On 14 August 2014, the Committee constituted by the District Magistrate, submitted a report. On the very same day, the District Magistrate passed the impugned order, without either furnishing a copy of the report to the petitioners or an opportunity of controverting the report. The petitioners have obtained a copy of the report dated 14 August 2014 subsequently by applying for a certified copy. 4. On these facts, it appears that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice and there is substance in the grievance of the petitioners that the impugned order has been passed in violation of those principles. The hearing of the proceedings was to take place on 10 September 2014. However, the order-sheet entry of 10 September 2014 indicates that an order had already been passed on 14 August 2014 relying on the report of the three member Committee, which was not furnished to the petitioners. The hearing of the proceedings was to take place on 10 September 2014. However, the order-sheet entry of 10 September 2014 indicates that an order had already been passed on 14 August 2014 relying on the report of the three member Committee, which was not furnished to the petitioners. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the grievance of the petitioners in regard to the laying of the transmission lines, we set aside the impugned order of the District Magistrate dated 14 August 2014 only on the ground that the order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, remand the proceedings back to the District Magistrate for a fresh decision. We direct that the petitioners would be at liberty, within a period of two weeks from today, to submit their objections, if any to the report of the three member Committee dated 14 August 2014 to the District Magistrate. The petitioners shall appear before the District Magistrate on 14 October 2014. The District Magistrate shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after furnishing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners no later than by 31 October 2014. We have indicated a time bound schedule for the disposal of proceedings having regard to the public work which is involved. 5. In order to facilitate a fresh order being passed, the impugned order dated 14 August 2014 is quashed and set aside. 6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has requested the Court to grant an injunction on any further activity of laying the transmission lines by the Power Grid Corporation, respondent nos.2 and 3. 7. We are not inclined to grant an injunction at this stage, but only direct that any further work of construction that is carried out, shall abide by the proceedings before the District Magistrate. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.