Parma Singh vs Deputy Commissioner and Others

Goswami, C.J.—The Petitioner purchased on 28th February 1966 a piece of RirKynti land of Mrs. Joyee Diengdoh measuring 17,720 square feet at Nongthvmai. Shillong for Rs. 20,000/- with the approval of the District Council United KhashiJaintia Hills on 25th November. 1965 and on the recommendation of the Syien of Mvllien. He obtained a patter from Mrs. Diengdoh on the same date. After the. purchase of the land, the Petitioner applied on 16th May 1966 to the Shillong Municipal Bpard for permission to construct a building according to a plan submitted with his application. As required by the, Board, a revised plan was also submitted on 15th June 1966 for approval. The Board, however rejected the application by the order of the Chairman of the Board on 7th of July 1966. The Petitioner preferred an appeal against that order to the Board u/s 321(1) of the Assam Municipal Act.. hereinafter called the Act on 3rd August. 1966. After hearing the Petitioner on 16th December. 1966.. the Appellate Committee decided to accord permission to the Petitioner to construct the building according to the plan, and the previous order of the Chairman was reversed. The Board''s order dated 27th December 1966. u/s 171 of the Act is marked as Annexure III to the petition.

After securing the above permission the Petitioner made preparations for construction of the building and actually laid foundation of the building on the land. Sometime,, pm 15th of May 1967 after about four months of the permission, the Petitioner received? an order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29th April. 1967 directing him hot to proceed with any construction work on the site until further orders. (Annexure IV). Thereafter, it is averred, without hearing the Petitioner the Deputy Commissioner suspended the permission of the Board by a order dated 26th July 1907. The petition appealed to the State Government on 15th October. 1967 against the order. The State Government by its order dated 25th February. 1968 confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner and directed that the suspension order will continue in force without modification.

The above orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the State Government are impugned by the present replication under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Petitioner obtained Rule Nisi on 20th September. 1968.

Although in his application the Petitioner challenged the vireos of Section 296 of the Assam Municipal Act. 1956 under which the authorities passed the impugned order and also issued notice to the Advocate-General. Assam who has entered appearance before us. this objection has been given up during the course of the hearing by Mr. Mahanta. the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

The main contention of the Petitioner is that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was passed without affording any reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner. We find that the Petitioner obtained due permission from the Municipal Board for constructing the premises on his land. As it appears from a statement of reasons given the Deputy Commissioner he did not take action u/s 296 of the Act suo motu but only on an application dated 10th April. 1967 submitted by the Headman of Laituakhrah and others objecting to the permission given by the Board. The orders stopping the construction of the building and suspending the permission of the Board cannot but affect the emolument of the property by the Petitioner. Such orders prejudicial to the interest of the Petitioner can only be passed by a statutory body after giving him reason-able opportunity to show cause against such orders. We find that no such reasonable opportunity was given to the Petitioner, nor was a copy of the application containing grounds of objections to construction of the premises was furnished to him. The Petitioner therefore was not at all aware of what the objections were to the proposed construction and there was even no scope for abatement of any possible nuisance, if any. that might arise in case of completion of the building as planned. The orders, therefore, affecting the rights of the Petitioner re-salting in civil consequences. are invalid for violation of the principles of natural justice We therefore duash the impugned . orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the State Government.

We should observe that we refrain from giving any opinion with regard to the submission that the impugned orders cannot at all be passed u/s 296 of the. Act.

The application is allowed but we will make no order as to costs.

M.C. Pathak, J.

I agree.