AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy
Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ''B'' Group is considered for final disposal.
The Learned Counsel for the respondent: seeks to time to file statement of objections. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, any such objections are not warranted.
The brief facts are, the petitioners are employees of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as ''Palike'' for short) represented by respondent No. 2 and they were promoted from time to time. The first petitioner was holding the post of Chief Engineer, while the second petitioner was holding the post of Superintending Engineer, East Division as on the date of the petition. It is their claim that they have a blemishless record of service and when the petitioners were functioning in their respective posts, they were issued with an order directing recovery of large sums of money, jointly, by a common order dated 08.06.2010. The petitioners after making efforts to learn the basis of such recovery were informed that in the light of a writ petition having been filed by one Syed Arifulla Habib in W.P. No. 4727/2009. whereby he had sought a direction from this Court not to demolish his property which was the subject matter of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the Palike to pull down the structures that was offensive and the Court also directed that an enquiry be conducted to ascertain the Officers responsible for having permitted such construction and thereafter to recover the expenditure thereof which was in the area of `1,37,300/- . It is on such a direction that the Palike is said to have passed a common order against the petitioners which is under challenge.
The Learned Counsel would submit that there was a specific direction by this Court to hold an enquiry and to ascertain the Officers responsible. If the petitioners are sough to be foisted with the default in having permitted the said construction, the petitioners ought to have been heard. The petitioners would complain that they have neither been issued with a notice nor was there an enquiry as directed by this Court. It is this which is the primary ground on which the present petitions are filed.
The circumstance that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, is not seriously disputed by the Learned Counsel for the respondents and there is no material available to show that the petitioners were indeed heard before any such order could be passed. This would be clearly in violation of principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the order dated 08.06.2010 at Annexure ''A'' to the Writ Petition would have to be struck down as being violative of law and is accordingly struck down. The petitions stand allowed. The respondents however, are given an opportunity to issue notice to the petitioners and to afford an opportunity of hearing before holding any enquiry if necessary, against them and then pass appropriate orders.
With that direction, the petitions stand disposed of.