SAI SHRADDHA ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) The Petition succeeds on a single solitary narrow point which is that the impugned action of demolition is taken without affording the Petitioner any hearing at all and on a completely incorrect and untenable basis that the Petitioner was not present at the so-called hearing conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of the Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation ("BNMC"). Several notices were issued to the Petitioner saying that his construction or part of it on City Survey Nos. 8415 to 8431 at Gauripada, Taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane was illegal. There is no doubt that the Petitioner was told to remain present for a hearing on 10/7/2019 at 4.00 pm. The Petitioner did remain present. The Assistant Commissioner who was to hold a hearing did not. He was apparently busy elsewhere. After waiting for some time, the Petitioner left the Assistant Commissioner's office but took care to write a note saying that the hearing could not take place and asked that he be informed of the fresh date. This notice was received at the Assistant Commissioner's office on 10/7/2019 at 5.00 pm. This tells us that the Petitioner waited for an hour between 4.00 pm and 5.00 pm; possibly more but not less.

(3.) What happened then is astounding. The impugned order came to be passed the very next day on 11/7/2019. A copy is at Exhibit "K" at pages 70 and 71. This notice is captioned as a 'decision after hearing' or a lquko.kh fu.kZ;. There was certainly a fu.kZ;. There was no lquko.kh. The third line says that the Petitioner failed to remain present on 11/7/2019 at 4.00 pm. But no notice was issued to the Petitioner between 5.00 pm on 10/7/2019 and