AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ
With the consent of both the learned counsel, this Special Appeal is being decided at this stage itself.
The appellant has challenged the legality of the order dated 30.06.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1212 of
2021. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that considering the fact that the appellant was not given an opportunity of hearing, while passing
the impugned order dated 15.10.2015, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to decide the appellant’s representation dated
22.06.2021. However, the learned Single Judge has not directed the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant prior to deciding the
said representation. Moreover, while the representation has to be decided within a period of two months, the learned Single Judge has not injuncted the
respondents from demolishing the structures allegedly raised by the appellant. Therefore, through an innocuous order, the learned Single Judge has
exposed the appellant to certain possible dangers. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, on the other hand, submits that a representation cannot be decided without
giving an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the apprehension of the appellant is highly misplaced.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order.
Obviously, once a representation is made, the respondents need to decide the same only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Therefore, the apprehension of the appellant that it would not be heard is misguided.
However, the apprehension of the appellant, that during the pendency of the representation, the structures allegedly raised may be demolished, is a
bonafide apprehension. For, the learned Single Judge has not prohibited the respondents from taking any action against the appellant during the
pendency of the representation.
Therefore, this Court modifies the order dated 30.06.2021 to the limited extent that the respondents are directed to give an opportunity of hearing to
the appellant, and the respondents shall neither take any adverse action, nor demolish the structures allegedly raised by the appellant, during the
pendency of the representation. Furthermore, the respondents are directed to pass a reasoned order after hearing the appellant.
With these modifications, this Special Appeal is, hereby, disposed of.
No order as to costs.