Harshadbhai J. Shastri vs Dakor Municipal Borough

D.S. Sinha, C.J.—Heard Mr. S.B. Vakil, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Murali N. Devnani, the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, and Ms. Harsha Devani, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent No.3.

The petitioner challenges the Javak No.39, dated 18th April, 2000, of the Chief Officer of the Dakor Municipal Borough directing the petitioner to remove by 24th April, 2000, all the advertisement-boards placed by him within the Municipal Borough area on the ground that the contract given to him for the period between 20th October, 1999 and 19th October, 2002 under the signature and certificate of the President had been suspended by the order dated 11th April, 2000 passed by the District Collector, Kheda in an appeal filed by one Rajendrabhai Dahyabhai Patel against the respondents herein.

It is not in dispute that to the appeal filed by Mr. Rajendrabhai Dahyabhai Patel which culminated into the order of the Collector dated 11th April, 2000, the petitioner was not impleaded as a party. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was given absolutely no opportunity by the Collector and also by the Chief Officer of Dakor Municipal Borough before passing the impugned orders. Further, it is not in dispute that by the order dated 11th April, 2000 passed by the Collector and the consequential order dated 18th April, 2000 passed by the Chief Officer of the Dakor Municipal Borough, the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced inasmuch as the contract granted to him was suspended by the impugned order.

The impugned orders dated 11th April, 2000 and 18th April, 2000, having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice are void, and must perish.

In the result, the petition succeeds, and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 11th April, 2000 and 18th April, 2000 are quashed. The matter is remitted to the Collector for deciding the controversy afresh by a reasoned order, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of three weeks, to be computed from the date of communication of the order to him. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 3 undertakes to communicate this order to the Collector within a week. Rule is made absolute. There is no order as to costs.