AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 to 6, 8, 12 to 20.
Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel.
A short point for consideration, at this stage, in the above writ petition is whether the impugned Order dated 1st July, 2015 stands vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.
Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that though the respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, or deal with the matter in controversy, nevertheless, the impugned order is vitiated as the principles of natural justice have not been followed. The learned Counsel further points out that such an order will create civil effects and, as such, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.3 to give a hearing to the concerned parties before passing such an order.
Mr. A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4, 5, 6, 8, 12 to 20 , however, disputes said contentions and points out that the order has been correctly passed by the respondent No.3.
Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande, learned Advocate General appearing for the State and its Authorities, however, submits that as the impugned order dated 01/07/2015 was passed without giving a hearing to the petitioners, the respondent No.3 shall withdraw the said order and give a hearing to the petitioners and all other concerned parties and take a decision afresh within three months, in accordance with law. The issue of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner may also be kept open which can be agitated before the respondent No.3.
In view of the above, we pass the following : O R D E R
(I) The impugned order dated 1st July, 2015 passed by the respondent No. 3 is quashed and set aside
(II) The respondent No.3 shall proceed to take a decision on the application dated 24th June, 2015 afresh, after hearing the petitioners and all other concerned parties in the light of the observations made herein above within three months from today, in accordance with law.
(III) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(IV) It is made clear that we have examined the merits of the matter and all the contentions of both the parties, including the point of jurisdiction, are left open.