(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3684 OF 2010 Shamsunder Dattatrya Bharde, Age : 68 years, Occupation : President of Cornation Hall Fund Committee, Shevgaon, Taluka : Shevgaon, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Collector, Ahmednagar. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zillah Parishad, Ahmednagar. 4. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Gram Panchayat), Zillah Parishad, Ahmednagar. 5. The District Panchayat Officer, Ahmednagar. (2) 6. Block Development Officer (Higher grade), Panchayat Samiti, Shevgaon, Taluka : Shevgaon, District : Ahmednagar. 7. The Village Development Officer, Grampanchayat, Shevgaon, Taluka : Shevgaon, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. K.M. Nagarkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent nos.3 to 7. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The limited grievance raised in the petition is that though the respondent no. 5 had granted permission to the petitioner for construction, vide order dated 3rd March 2010, the (3) same has been cancelled by respondent no.4 vide order dated 12th March 2010, without giving any notice to the petitioner. 2. From the record, it is clear that the permission was, in fact, granted to the petitioner on 3rd March 2010, for carrying out construction in accordance with certain conditions. However, the same has been cancelled vide order dated 12th March 2010. It is not in dispute that the same has been done without giving any notice to the petitioner or affording an opportunity of hearing. 3. It is a settled principle of law, that any order inviting adverse civil consequences is required to be preceded by principles of natural justice. On this short ground, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12th March 2010, passed by respondent no.4, canceling the construction permission in favour of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. Needless to state, that if any action is contemplated, the same shall be preceded by a show cause notice to the petitioner. (4) 5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3684