^'^L^ ~ A ATSH4^UR(C.Ckl 'WRM? HE'raaOM lCtN0. ^^t fc WSSF PESTION CON^EEFUTKtNOFINDK. ^% '^ -•••"fll/0.** .^^€^> r<asy K""^.--''' ;** / SombfeatF, aged aboiAt 35^ years, S<MI ot SIui MadanM Bhatt, resictot of >t 2!fo, 648, Street No. 3f, SsiERty Nagaft Jwswwai, BhgEai, District Darg l|eh6att garh) VERSS33 RESPCMJQBNTS /• ^?'^vs '(^^^6 #! .llEM>^ ^/ / ^7 ^\€^ ^y ^ ^ M.' :y I. Stat®ofCB&attisgarh, X fteoug^i - t&e Seeretary, of KevefxeeB, Daa Katyaa Sui^i Bhawtea, Raipur {C.&.jr .'2. Muttliapal Coiporatioa, Oistt. Dva-g, tbrou^ - its C<»asiissioaer« Btulaia DistEtet Burg {&©.) 3» BuSlding Persiissioa Offieer, Mwae^pal CorpoT^toa ~ &|.B^^C.GF;^ /4. SxSBFify GMfe Nfemaff SaMearit S^aiflt StoyadjEt, througfct - its Presideait SssnSy Nagar, %3ai» OiStirict DWg (e.G..) / / z ^ ^ 5. B.C. Baochhod, soa of Not Known, resirfent of 22/5, Nehru Nagar, East ^hilai, District Bnrg (Chhattisg^rh). The Petitioner, named afaove, riespectftffly subimts as -uiuier:- f4 ^K!;' t& /!• HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastaya, J. PETiTiONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION fCl N0.4848/2006 Sombhatt Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others Present: - Shri T.K.Tiwari, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State/respondent No.1. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, counsel of respondentsNo.2 and 3. None for other respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16th of March, 2011) / At the outset, Shri Bhatia submits that there is some discrepancy in the cause title and as the petitioner has chalienged action of Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, therefore, he is representing Municipal Corporation, Bhilai and return has been fiied by the Municipai Corporation, Bhiiai. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 19/6/06 (Annexure P/5) by Which the building permission granted eariier on 12/8/05 has been cancelled. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a parcel of land from respondent No.4 for construction of a residential building. It i's the case of the petitioner that he had obtained buiiding permission also for such construction but vide letter 19/06/06 (Annexure P/5), his buiiding- permission has been cancetied. n ^ t' S \>^ lti 4. Amongst various grounds which have beeri raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, the foremost submission is that the order of cancellation of building permission has been passed without affording full and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned couhsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner received impugned order dated 19/06/06, he sent letter dated 12/7/06 (Annexure P/6- filed along with the rejoinder) to the building officer of the Corporation wherein he has stated that ietter dated 19/06/06 was received by the petitioner on 7/7/06 but notice dated 9/6/06, No.1307 and another notice dated 9/6/06, No.1314 was not received by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that though the respondent-Corporation in its return has ctaimed that notice dated 9/6/06 was issued to the petitioner as reflected from the disi»tch register and certificate of posting dated 13/6/06, there is no proof of service of notice on the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner has categoricaily submitted in his replythat notice dated 9/6/06 was not received. Therefore, in his submission, the impugned order of canceilation of permission is liable to be cancelied, oniy on the ground of violation of principies pf natural justice. 5. Repiying to these arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 stated that the notice dated 9/6/06 was dispatched to the petitioner and the records of dispatch have been placed on record as Annexure R/2-5 showing that notice was dispatched on 12/6/06. Learned counsei for respondent Corporation aiso refers to the certificate of posting Annexure R/2-6 which shows that notiee dated 9/6/06 was actually put in the course of postat transaction on 13/06/06. He submits that in ordinary course of nature, the notice shouid be presumed to have been received by the petitioner, as the petitioner does not dispute the address given on the postal certiricate (Annexure R/2-6). ,^\) 1. 6. The petitioner has stated in his petition that he was not granted ftill opportunity of hearing before canceliation of building permission. The petitioner has placed on record his letter dated 12/7/06 (Annexure P/6) sentto the Building OfRcer of the Corporation wherein the petitioner has categoricaily stated that he did not recsive show cause notice dated 9/6/06. in the rejoinder on affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner did not receive show cause notice dated 9/6/06. Though respondent-Corporation has placed on record, copies of dispatch and postaicertificates, which only proves that it was dispatched. It is not a case where notices were sent by Registered Post and the respondents have piaced on record any acknowledgment of receipt. 7. Therefore, 1 have to conclude that the respondents have faited to prove thatshow cause notice was served on the petitioner and the petitioner failed to submit his repiy within 10 days from the date of service of notice. The stand taken by the petitipner does not appear to be an afterthought beeause in his letter dated 12/07/06 iteelf, the petitioner steted that he has not received any notjce. 8. The action of canceliation of building permission has serious consequences to ensue. The petitioner wanted to construct a house after taking loan. Under the order of cancellation of building permission, the petitioner was directed to remove whatever construction he has raised, therefore before such drastic action against the petitioner is taken, the petitioner is entitled to proper opportunity of hearing. Since, 1 am satisfled that the impugned order of cancellation of building permission was passed without service of show cause notice dated 9/6/06 on the petitioner, it is not necessary for this Court to delve ..../•?n^3s>- ^•^: "'"«:;. -/ ..^iv-is. "!h 1I. "°""' J;:: •s^3"'. -gy \^) into any other aspect of the matter or issues on which, parties have joined in the case. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19/6/06 (Annexure P/5) is quashed, It would, however, be open for the Corporation to take acfion against the petitioner after considering reply which may be filed by the petitioner. in case, Corporation intends to take action againstthe petitioner, the proceedings, if \ • • • . any, shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of reply of the petitioner. 10. The petitioner shali now positively fiie reply to the show cause notice dated 9/6/06 before the Corporation within a period of six weeks from today. The Corporation shall be at liberty to decide the matter in accordance with lawafter considering the repiy submitted by the petitioner. Under any circumstances, the matter shall be finally decided by the Corporation within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of reply of the petitioner. Untii then, the petitioner shail not raise any construction. The petition is accordingly ailowed. No orders astocosts. — Deepfi w Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge