POOJA KANKONKAR Vs. MARGAO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Rule. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. Padiyar waives service for the respondent. Heard.

(2.) The impugned order does not record any reasons for rejecting the permission, but only says that the permission was rejected due to objection filed by the President of Margao New Market Traders' Association. In our view, this is no reason at all. What was the objection, who considered it, is not mentioned in the impugned order. Furthermore, if the permission was to be rejected only on account of objection from the Traders' Association, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing or at least filing reply to the objection. Without giving any opportunity whatsoever to the petitioner, the application for permission has been rejected which ought not have been done.

(3.) We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent Municipal Council to reconsider the application made by the petitioner for permission. If the Council is of the view that the permission is to be rejected in view of the objection, then it should give to the respondent an opportunity of meeting the objection before passing an order of rejection of the permission. We expect that the Council would decide the application for permission expeditiously and preferably within a period of 15 days from today. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.