IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION 1439 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION :August 18,2008 Municipal Council Doraha ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.Vikram Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Sahu, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1 Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for respondent No.2 Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate, for respondent No.3 01- Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2- To be referred to the reporters or not? 3- Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J By way of present petition, the Municipal Council, Doraha, has challenged the notification dated 06-01-2005 vide which the erstwhile area of village Kanech has been withdrawn from its limits and has been reverted back to Gram Panchayat. It is averred that originally by notification dated 21-09-1995 , certain area which fell within the limits of Gram Panchayat, Kanech but which belonged to private persons, had been included in its limits. This action was challenged by Gram Panchayat-respondent No.2 by way of filing CWP 19883 of 1996 which is still pending. It is further pleaded that originally vide notification dated 08-10- 2001 objections were sought by respondent No.1-State of Punjab to the exclusion CWP 1439 of 2005 --2-- of this area from the municipal limits of Doraha and its reversion to the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Kanech. The petitioner filed objections which were heard on 17-03-2004, 23-04-2004, 13-07-2004, 10-08-2004. Vide order dated 06-10-2004, the competent authority after recording all the contentions of the various parties decided that it would not be appropriate for the Government to take decision in view of pendency of the abovementioned CWP 19883 of 1996 and thus the proceedings were kept in abeyance till the final decision of the petition. It may be noticed that this order was passed in compliance with the order dated 18- 02-2004 passed in CWP 19789 of 2003 to the following effect:- “Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is made clear that in case the petitioner files any objection before the authorities on or before 25-02-2004, the same shall be considered and disposed of while passing the final order in accordance with the law. No costs.” It is further averred that exactly 3 months thereafter, the impugned notification was issued on 06-01-2005 whereby the order was passed to exclude the area from which has led to the filing of the present petition. It is argued by Mr.Vikram Bali, Advocate, that after having specifically kept the proceedings in abeyance pending the decision of the abovementioned CWP 19883 of 1996, there was no occasion for respondent No.1 to pass the order when the said petition was still pending. Nothing had been changed and no new grounds had arisen which could necessitate the passing of fresh order. He further argued that the impugned order was also liable to be set aside on the ground that it was absolutely non-speaking. His next submission is that even if it was felt necessary to decide the matter, it was incumbent upon respondent No.1 to have given fresh hearing to all the affected parties including the petitioner. Countering these arguments Mr.Amit Rawal, learned counsel for CWP 1439 of 2005 --3-- respondent No.2 has stated that after the passing of the order dated 06-10-2004, his client had represented to the Government that it was prepared to withdraw the abovementioned CWP 19883 of 1996 in case the final decision to transfer the disputed land to the Gram Panchayat was taken. Subsequently, the Gram Panchayat had, in fact, moved an application for withdrawal of the writ petition but the same has not yet been decided. He further argued that the impugned decision was an entirely administrative matter which had been passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. As regards the contention that the impugned order was non speaking, it is his submission that the same has to be read along with the original draft notification dated 08-10-2001 which has clearly spelled out the reasons because of which the proposal was being mooted viz., the lack of any development activity having been taken by the Municipal Council despite the lapse of so many years since the area was included within its limits. In my opinion, this petition must succeed on the short ground that the matter having been kept in abeyance vide order dated 06-10-2004 to await the decision of this Court in CWP 19883 of 1996, there was no occasion for the competent authority to pass the impugned order after a lapse of 3 months when the said petition had not yet been decided. No other supervening factor which could have necessitated the taking of decision has been brought to my notice. Apart from this, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to his contention that even if it was felt necessary to pass a fresh order for any good reasons, the same could not have been done without affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. This would be all the more essential since, as noticed above, originally the parties were heard on 4 dates in pursuance to the order of this Court in CWP 19789 of 2003 (supra). I draw support in this regard from the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.Kapoor versus Jagmohan reported as AIR 1981 SC 136 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as CWP 1439 of 2005 --4-- follows :- “In our view the requirements of natural justice are met only if opportunity to represent is given in view of proposed action. The demands of natural justice are not met even if the very person proceeded against has been furnished the information on which the action is based, if it is furnished in a casual way or for some other purpose.” Reference may also profitably be made in this regard to the case of Baldev Singh and others versus State of H.P. & others reported as AIR 1987 SC 1239 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “It is a fact that the Orissa Act provides in clear terms a right of hearing whereas Section 256 of the Himachal Act makes no such provision but the settled position in law is that where exercise of a power results in civil consequences to citizens unles the statute specifically rules out the application of natural justice, the rules of natural justice would apply. We accept the submission on behalf of the appellants that before the notified area was constituted in terms of S.256 of the Act, the people of the locality should have been afforded an opportunity of being heard and the administrative decision by the State Government should have been taken after considering the view of the residents. Denial of such opportunity is not in consonance with the scheme of the Rule of Law governing our society.” Both the learned counsel have vehemently canvassed on the merits of the decision. However, in view of what has been stated above, it is not necessary for me to enter this thicket of controversy. In this view of the matter, without expressing any view on the merits of the claims of either side, this writ petition is allowed. Notification dated 06-01- 2005 is set aside. The competent authority would, however, be at liberty to pass a CWP 1439 of 2005 --5-- fresh order after recording reasons which may have necessitated the passing of the order in derogation of the earlier order dated 06-10-2004 and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. No order as to costs. Sd/- [Ajay Tewari] Judge 18-08-2008