te.^wa'sSSS l??i;""" HK3H COURT OF JUDIGATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASTOR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, C.J. WRIT PETmONN0.55e6 OF 20Qi5 PETmONER yersys RESPONDENTS Chedilal Nishad S/o Shri Mohah Nistad. Aged about 37 years, R/o Banjhonpali Jute Mill Raigarh, Tdisii& Disfc Durg-(C.G.). Mayor Municipal Corptwafion Raigarh Dist: Raigarh (C.G.) The ChiefMuniei|Ml CTTicer, ft4unicipal Corporation, Ralgarh, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) Present: Mr. V.K. Panctey, teamed counsel fer the p^iUoner. Mr. V.R. Tiwari, leamedcounselforrespondentNo.1. Mr. Vinay Harit, leamed G.A., for ttie State. ORAL ORE»R (Passed on 19InJanuary,2006) This writ petition is enUtled to be attowedon a short ground. The petittoner was granted fishing rights in ttie FatahamiKla tank in rssponse his applicaUon made in pursuance of the notificatfon No.943/Bazar.V/N.P.N!Q005 dated 19/07/20<» calting tor tendars. The said right granted was prematurely cancelled by ttie respondents 30/09/2005 on the basis of certain complaint made by tie villagers and residents'Iiving around the sald tenk, but, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. When ttiis matter was heard on 28/11/2005, it was not ctear to the Court wh^herthe fldiing right granted to the petiUoner was cancelled withoutgiving any nrtce to him. Therefore, the Court directed the learned eounsel for e respondents to ^ ^•\f\?\^S^?'^SS^ ^yi.ws.s.saB ascertain from ttieir clients whetherttie respondents cancelted the fishing right granted to the petitioner wiUiout noUce to him and withoutgiving any opportunity of belng heard. Today, at the Ume of t'^ring, leamed counsel for the respondents on insfrucUons submitted that ttis fishing granted to the petitfoner has been cancefled on ths basis of-complainte lodged by tte villagere and those pereons who reside around the tank without issuing any notice to the petiUoner and wfthout givfng any opportunity <rf being heard. The responderrts being thelocal statutory authoritiesare required to practise faimess and adhere to principles of natural justice when they take adverse action against a person and, tterefore, they ought to havs Issued notice to the petitfoner and gwen an opportunity to have his say in the matter before taking a decision on the complaints todged by ttie villagere. !n that view of the matter, the Impugned order cannot be sustained. (2) In ths result, the writ petiCon is altowed. The canceltaBon of the fishing right granted to the petitioner is quashed. No costs. However, this order shall not come in the way of the respondents frmn taking appropriate acUon on the complaints locteed by the villagere, tf ttey so think, after giving fair opportunity to the petiBoner to have hte say in tte matter. Nocoste. ___. Sd/- Chief Justice c,, -oje^+i.