Rubina Sheikh and Others vs Municipal Corporation and Others

Arun Mishra, J.

Petitioners are assailing the order dated 25-9-2001 passed by the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal cancelling the permission No. 3077, dated 24-11 -2000 for violation of condition No. 4 and condition No. 8 of the permission as there was dispute as to the title which has arisen in the opinion of the Municipal Corporation.

It is conceded at Bar that prior to cancelling the permission which was granted on 24-11-2000, none of the petitioners was heard. No show-cause notice was issued why the permission granted on 24-11-2000 be not cancelled. In my opinion in the absence of issue of a notice requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the permission granted on 24-11-2000 be not cancelled, it was not open to the Municipal Corporation to pass the order (P-10), even if dispute has arisen as to the title, it was incumbent upon the Municipal Corporation to have heard the petitioners in that matter and then take a decision after hearing the petitioners in accordance with law. Permission once granted cannot be cancelled without hearing the petitioners.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner No. 3; Nasir Hussain has not executed any power of attorney in favour of Karan Singh. Nasir Hussain himself had filed a complaint and issued legal notice, on the basis of which the Corporation has acted. Permission was in the name of five persons; Rubina Sheikh, Shehnaz Shaikh, Nasir Hussain, Sajid Hussain and Abdul Hameed. In case there is dispute raised by Nasir Hussain, one of the alleged owner. It was incumbent upon the Corporation to have heard Rubina Sheikh, Shehnaz Shaikh, Sajid Hussain and Abdul Hameed. Whatever that may be the order (P-10) is bad in law being violative of principles of natural justice. The apprehension expressed by learned Counsel for the respondents that Nasir Hussain may again be represented by Karan Singh before the Corporation is baseless. In case Nasir Hussain has disputed the power of attorney, it is open to Corporation to issue notice to Nasir Hussain and afford opportunity of hearing to Nasir Hussain.

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. Order (P-10) is quashed. However, it is directed that no steps be taken by the petitioner on the basis of permission, till the matter is decided afresh by the Municipal Corporation after hearing the petitioners. Let a decision be taken within 3 months from today. Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.