Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Malwa Vanaspati And Chemicals ... vs Directorate Of Town And Country ... on 3 December, 2021
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
... 1 ... W.P.No.19549/2020
HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE
S.B. HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBODH ABHYANKAR
W.P.No.19549/2020
(The Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. vs. The Joint Director,
Town and Country Planning & Anr.)
Indore dt.3.12.2021
Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior counsel with Shri V.K. Jain,
learned Senior counsel with Ms.V. Jain, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri P. Kibe, learned counsel for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Heard.
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking the following relief :-
"(a) That, a writ, direction or order in the nature of
certiorari or mandamus or as may be deemed fit be issued
thereby calling the entire record lying in office of the
respondents.
(b) To issue appropriate writ, direction or order quashing
the impugned order (Annx.P/7 and Annx.P/16) and to
direct the respondents to restore the permissions
(Annxs.P/1 and P/2.)
(c) In the alternative it is prayed that ultimately even if it
to be held that the petitioner has committed some
violation of the conditions of the permission, the
petitioner may be granted opportunity to rectify the same
and the respondents may kindly be directed to annual the
revocations.
(d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit be
argued.
(e) This petition may kindly be allowed."
Vide order dated 10.11.2020, development permission has
been cancelled and consequently vide order dated 27.11.2020, the
... 2 ... W.P.No.19549/2020
building permission has also been cancelled.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he was served with a
show cause notice Annexure P/3, dated 21.9.2020, regarding
violation of development permission to which a request was made by
the petitioner on 26.9.2020 stating therein that since Director of the
petitioner Company is 78 years old and on account of Corona
pandemic, he is not able to visit his company premises and obtain the
necessary documents to be file with the reply, hence, 30 days time
was sought. Thereafter, after two days, i.e., on 28.9.2020, again a
notice was served on the petitioner Company by the respondent No.1
to which again the petitioner made the same request on 1.10.2020
seeking 30 days time to collect the necessary documents and this
time the petitioner Company also stated that as its head office is at
Mumbai and again he would require 30 days time to file the reply to
the show cause notice. However, on 10.11.2020, the respondents
have passed the final order on merits making a reference of the
petitioner's aforesaid two letters seeking 30 days time.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner was genuinely restrained by the circumstances to file
the reply and it is not the case where the petitioner was not interested
in contesting the matter and in fact, the letters dated 26.9.2020 and
1.10.2020 clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was only seeking
time to collect the documents but on account of Covid-19 pandemic
situation, the Director of the petitioner who was also 70 years old,
was not in a position to visit his company premises. Thus, it is
submitted that it is a clear violation of principles of natural justice, as
the petitioner ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity of
hearing before passing the order. It is further submitted that even
though the impugned order was passed on 10.11.2020, in the
meantime also the respondent has not given any notice that the
matter has been kept for final hearing. Thus, it is submitted that the
impugned orders be quashed.Learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner has also placed reliance on the order/judgment of the Apex
... 3 ... W.P.No.19549/2020
Court in the case of Mariamma Roy vs. Indian Bank & Ors. (2009)
16 SCC 187.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 have opposed the
prayer and submitted that the petitioner bypassed the remedy of
appeal available to him under Section 25A of M.P. Bhoomi Vikas
Niyam, Rules and thus no case for interference is made out. Learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 has also opposed the prayer on the
same grounds, reiterating the grounds raised by the learned counsel
for the State.
On due consideration of the submissions and perusal of the
record, this Court finds that the petitioner was justified in seeking 30
days time from the respondents to submit his reply, taking into
account the Covid 19 pandemic situation, thus this Court is of the
considered opinion that the respondents ought to have given a
reasonable time to the petitioner to file the reply. It is also found that
in the impugned orders although the respondents have taken note of
the letters issued by the petitioner, which indicates that they were not
unaware of the difficulties faced by the petitioner in filing the reply.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the are hereby quashed.
Accordingly, Annexures P/7 and P/17 are hereby quashed on the sole
ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.
Consequently, it is directed to the petitioner to submit his reply
within two weeks time to the respondent No.1, who shall decide the
same in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking
order.
It is made clear that this Court has not reflected upon the
merits of the case and the concerned authority shall decide the same
without being influenced by the order passed by this Court.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
SS/-
Digitally signed by SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Date: 2021.12.07 18:29:48
+05'30'
