Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 55 (MEG)

Smti Mary Jyrwa v. State of Meghalaya

2014-04-04

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2014
Order (ORAL) Mr. S. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in pursuance of the interim order dated 25.05.2010 passed in present writ petition, the respondent No. 3, Meghalaya Urban Development Authority (MUDA), Shillong issued a notice under Section 30B of the Meghalaya Town and Country Planning Act, 1973 to the petitioner. This fact is not disputed by Mr. S.P.Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. 2. Heard Mrs. N.G. Shylla, learned GA appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2. and Mr. SP Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 & 4. 3. The only case of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that impugned order/notice dated 13.05.2013 was issued without complying with the procedure provided under Section 30B of the Meghalaya Town and Country Planning Act, 1973. 4. The respondent Nos. 3 & 4 had filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein, it is stated that the notice provided under Section 30B of the Act, 1973 had been issued to the petitioner before issuing impugned notice dated 13.05.2013. Be that as it may, as stated above, the notice under Section 30B of the Act had been issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 4 in pursuance of the interim order of this court dated 23.05.2013. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed representation/show cause statement but the respondent No. 3 is yet to take final decision. 5. In the above factual backdrop, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No. 3 to decide the show cause statement/representation by passing a reasoned order. It is also made clear that opportunity should be available to the petitioner to put up her case before passing any order by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner may be heard in person if necessary before taking final decision. 6. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of this judgment and order along with writ petition and show cause statement to the respondent No. 3 within a period of 1 week from today. The whole exercise should be completed within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. 7. The whole exercise should be completed within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. 7. The petitioner shall not make any further constructions or shall not make any improvement or alteration of the building which is now standing on the land in question while the said show cause statement is pending before the Respondent No. 3. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by any order passed by the respondent No. 3, she may approach this Court. 8. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.