AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.K. Lahoti, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order Annexure P/1 issued by the Commissioner, Muncipal Corporation, Burhanpur dated 12.10.01, by which the Commissioner has cancelled the "No Objection Certificate" Annexure P/5 dated 5.2.01 assigning reason that the Muncipal Corporation has not resolved in this regard.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order Annexure P/1 has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and before issuance of such order, no show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner which should be given by the Muncipal Corporation. There was no necessity for passing any resolution by the Corporation. The Petitioner has invested an amount to the tune of Rs. 43,00,000/- for the development of the land and the order Annexure P/1 is to the detriment of the interest of the Petitioner. Contending aforesaid, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order Annexure P/1 be quashed.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that against the order Annexure P/1, the Petitioner has filed appeal before the appellate committee of the Corporation, which is pending, but without awaiting the decision of the aforesaid committee, the Petitioner has filed this petition. It is also contended that "No Objection Certificate" itself provides that this "No Objection Certificate" has been issued subject to further decision by the Corporation and the Corporation has not affirmed aforesaid "No Objection Certificate". In the circumstances, order Annexure P/1 was rightly issued by the Commissioner.
So far as the first objection of learned Counsel for Respondents is concerned that the appeal against the order Annexure P/1 is pending before the appellate committee, the aforesaid appeal was filed long back on 26.5.01, but the Respondent has not decided the aforesaid appeal nor any explanation has been submitted along with return, why the aforesaid appeal has not been considered and decided. Nor any willingness has been shown to decide the appeal. In the circumstances, this petition is heard finally.
From the perusal of "No Objection Certificate" Annexure P/4, it appears that there is mention of the fact that this No Objection Certificate has been issued subject to further decision by the Muncipal Corporation, but nothing has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for Respondents that the Muncipal Corporation ever has decided not to grant "No Objection Certificate" in favour of the Petitioner, if the "No Objection Certificate" was issued with the approval of Mayor-in-Council then what was the necessity for seeking approval of Corporation. This has not been explained by the Respondents nor any specific provision has been shown providing necessity to seek approval of the Corporation. Apart from this, the "No Objection Certificate" specifically provides that this certificate is subject to any decision by the Muncipal Corporation. Muncipal Corporation has not passed any resolution or considered the matter in this regard. Then, there was no occasion of cancellation of "No Objection Certificate" by the Respondents. Thus, "No Objection Certificate" was issued on 26.2.02 and the Petitioner has acted on the basis of aforesaid certificate. Respondents ought to have issued show cause notice before cancellation of "N.O.C." Principle of Natural Justice requires that before cancellation of the certificate, the Petitioner ought to have been afforded opportunity, but without affording any opportunity of hearing, order Annexure P/1 has been passed by the Corporation which cannot be sustained under the law. Consequently, petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed. Order Annexure P/1 cancelling the "N.O.C." is hereby quashed. The Petitioner is also entitled for cost of the petition, which is quantified to be Rs. 1,000/-.
At this stage, learned Counsel for Respondents submits that the Respondents be granted liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice for cancellation of the aforesaid "N.O.C.". Suffice it to say that "N.O.C." was issued after due consideration of the matter by the Mayor In Council of the Muncipal Corporation. If circumstances warrant, or the Petitioner violates any provision of the Act or rules, Respondents are always free to take appropriate action in accordance with law and in this regard no direction or liberty at this stage require.