1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 312 OF 2009 1. Mr. Albert Fernandes, r/o Sauntawado, Calangute, Bardez Goa. 2. Mrs. Conceicao Fernandes, r/o Sauntawado, Calangute, Bardez Goa. ... Petitioners V e r s u s 1. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Porvorim Goa, 2. Deputy Collector & Sub Divisional Magistrate, Incharge of Demolition Squad, Panaji Goa. 3. The Village Panchayat of Calangute, Through the Sarpanch/Secretary, Calangute, Bardez Goa. 4. The Additional Director of Panchayats-II, The Directorate of Panchayats, Government of Goa, Third Floor, Junta House, Panaji Goa. ... Respondents Mr. Galileo Teles, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Shri H. D.Naik, Advocate for the Respondent no.3. Coram :- A. H. JOSHI, J. Date :- 20 th JULY, 2009. 2 JUDGMENT : 1. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. Facts, and the summary of petitioners' grievance is as below :- (a) The claimant was issued a show cause notice of demolition of his hut. Copy where of is at Annexure – A to the Writ Petition. (b) He has furnished the reply. He claims that personal hearing was not given. (c) Petitioners' explanation is rejected by the respondent no.3 on the sole ground that permission of Director of Tourism is not produced. (d) Said rejection being on sole ground for want of NOC is unsustainable as all other points have not been ruled. (e) The respondent no.1 who had decided the appeal has passed the order without following the law and without looking into the point as to violation of principles of natural justice. 3. The petitioners have during submissions before this Court placed strong reliance on photo copies towards payment of money towards licence fee towards fishing, produced before this Court which are at page 29 to 51. 4. According to the petitioners these receipts demonstrate that the petitioners were doing the fishing business. They then urge that these 3 receipts demonstrate that the petitioners were storing fishing nets in the hut which is now sought to be demolished through notice and order passed by the Respondent no.3. 5. This Court has perused the show cause notice and reply. It reveal that the petitioners had failed to make out a case before the Respondent No.3 as well as before Respondent No.1, to prove the nexus between fact of existence of hut over decades, as alleged with location i.e. survey No.244/3 where the subject matter hut is standing. 6. It is also seen that the receipts now relied upon by the petitioners do not demonstrate and do not establish any nexus between fishing business allegedly carried out with location of hut. 7. It is not shown that these receipts were relied upon and were produced before the Respondents. 8. The sketch drawn after the survey which is also relied upon by the petitioners does no in any manner create or establish any nexus of the hut with the location. 9. It is also seen that though personal hearing is an essential ingredient of administrative action having civil consequences, personal hearing is not a mechanical or a prototype format. 4 10. 'Hearing' would essentially means giving a notice of show cause which is admittedly given. Personal hearing would be warranted whenever a case for that exercise of need of calling personally and giving a hearing is made out from the contents of the reply to the show cause notice furnished by the person claiming to be so heard personally. 11. Admittedly, a show cause notice has been given. When no grounds, worth the personal hearing and explanation are made out, the rule of personal hearing is not a thing to be followed as a ritual or a compliance for name sake. 12. When no case is made out and the objections which have been raised are considered and decided, the order cannot be held vitiated due to alleged lack of personal hearing. 13. In these premises present petition does not merit interference and is rejected. A. H. JOSHI, J. at*