JUDGMENT : Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 22.10.10 issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Balotra, whereby while granting sanction for raising construction of residential building, a condition has been imposed that 30' wide way shall be kept open by the petitioner in the public interest. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner, a nationalised bank was allotted 4197 sq. ft. land for residential building and accordingly, a perpetual lease was executed between the petitioner and the respondent-Municipal Board on 28.3.97. After a lapse of a few years, the petitioner made an application to the Municipal Board, seeking permission for sanction of residential building plans. The plans submitted by the petitioner were duly sanctioned by the Municipal Board and the permission to raise construction was issued on 26.11.02. The operative period of the sanction was from 1.12.02 to 30.11.03. The petitioner could not start the construction within the time frame and therefore, an application was filed seeking extension of time and the respondent-Municipal Board granted the extension for completion of the construction, where under the petitioner was required to complete the construction within the period from 8.7.05 to 7.7.06. The petitioner could not start the construction even within the time period extended as aforesaid and made yet another application on 9.8.10 seeking permission for raising construction. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 21.9.10, whereby the petitioner was informed that the public representatives of Ward No.16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 23 have raised objection against the construction permission being granted and therefore, it may file reply to objections before the Building Committee on 22.9.10. Thereafter, straight away, the Executive Officer, Municipal Board issued an order dated 21.10.10 granting conditional sanction as aforesaid. After issuing the sanction as aforesaid, the respondent-Municipal Board issued a notice inviting tender for inter alia construction of 30' wide road on the land of the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent-Municipal Board, taking the stand that a public way passes through petitioner's land, which is adjacent to the main road and therefore, if the construction permission is granted to the petitioner, the existing way shall stand closed. It is submitted that in the public interest, the condition imposed is just and proper. It is submitted that in the public interest, the condition imposed is just and proper. It is submitted that the NIT dated 10.12.10 stands cancelled and at present, no construction of the road is proposed to be raised by the Municipal Board. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that no reason has been assigned by the Municipal Board for revoking the permission earlier granted to the petitioner under the applicable provisions of law. Learned counsel submitted that no condition for providing the public way passing through the petitioner's land could have been imposed by the Municipal Board without acquiring the land in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's land is already surrounded by roads on four sides and therefore, mere statement of the respondent-Municipal Board that the said decision was taken in the public interest would not make the action sought to be taken legal. Learned counsel submitted that before imposing the condition, no opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner. It is submitted that the notice was issued on 21.9.10 and on the very next day on 22.9.10, the Branch Manager of the petitioner-bank was asked to appear before the Building Committee. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the said notice was served upon the petitioner on 23.9.10 i.e. a day after the scheduled date. Learned counsel submitted that the condition imposed by the Municipal Board without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is ex facie violative of principle of natural justice. 5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipal Board submitted that on the objection being raised by the public representatives taking into consideration the existence of the way, the condition imposed by the Municipal Board in the larger public interest, cannot be faulted with. 6. Indisputably, the petitioner did not raise the construction pursuant to the sanction granted by the Municipal Board within the extended period from 8.7.05 to 7.7.06. Thereafter, the plans were again submitted by the petitioner for sanction vide application dated 9.8.10. A perusal of the application dated 9.8.10 does not reveal that the petitioner made an application seeking extension of the time for raising the construction, rather, it was an application seeking sanction of the plan submitted as aforesaid. In this regard, the affidavit attached to the application placed on record as Annexure 6 is self explanatory. A perusal of the application dated 9.8.10 does not reveal that the petitioner made an application seeking extension of the time for raising the construction, rather, it was an application seeking sanction of the plan submitted as aforesaid. In this regard, the affidavit attached to the application placed on record as Annexure 6 is self explanatory. Be that as it may, if any objection was raised by the public representatives or the residents, the Municipal Board was under an obligation to extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Apparently, the petitioner was given only a day's time to file reply to the objections. The stand of the petitioner that the communication dated 21.9.10 was served upon the Branch Manager of the Bank on 23.9.10 is also not controverted by the respondent-Municipal Board. In any case, while granting permission for raising construction, the Municipal Board could not have unilaterally imposed the condition upon the petitioner to provide 30' wide public way through its land. The Municipal Board could not have proceeded to impose the condition with the presumption that there was an existing way passing through the land allotted to the petitioner. That apart, if the land forming the part of the public way was transferred by the Municipal Board in favour of the petitioner, nothing prevented it from taking appropriate proceedings for cancellation of the lease to that extent in accordance with law. Obviously, the matter with regard to justification of imposition of condition as aforesaid, has to be dealt with by the Municipal Board in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the order impugned passed by the Municipal Board in perfunctory manner in violation of principles of natural justice, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 22.10.10 issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Balotra is quashed. The respondent-Municipal Board is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of sanction for raising construction of residential building afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.