SHAMRAO VISHNU SIGNAPURKAR Vs. MAPUSA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that this revision application gives rise to is whether before issuing a notice under Sec.184(8) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Municipalities Act, 1968, for demolition of an illegally erected construction it is necessary to give a show cause notice to the owner of the said construction.

(2.) A few facts may be necessary for the disposal of this case. The present petitioner has been served with a notice under the aforesaid Sec. 184(8) of the Municipalities Act to demolish a room which was, according to the Municipality, erected by him illegally and without the requisite licence. The petitioner alleged that the said room is an old construction, but the Municipality decided to go ahead with the demolition of the said room. In view of this attitude of the Mapusa Municipal Council, the petitioner herein filed a suit against the aforesaid Municipal Council for the purpose of permanently restraining it from demolishing the suit structure. In addition and pending the disposal of the said suit, the petitioner prayed for a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from demolishing the said suit structure. The learned trial Judge by his Order dated 21st June, 1982, vacated the ex parte injunction which has been granted by him on 19.1.82. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said Order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa to the District Court, Panaji and the said appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 25th January, 1983.

(3.) The case of the petitioner before me is that the Chief Officer of the respondent was bound to give a show cause notice to him before issuing an Order under Sec. 184(8) of the Municipalities Act, since that much was required by the principles of natural justice. And elaborating this point, Mr. M.S. Usgaokar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited my attention to the provision of Sec.184(8) of the Municipalities Act and submitted that it may appear from a reading of the said provision of law that no show cause notice is required. However, the learned counsel contended that, undoubtedly the powers given in the aforesaid provisions of law are quasi-judicial in nature and, therefore, it was necessary for the exercise of the said powers to give a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why action under the said provision of law was not to be taken. Mr. Usgaokar further submitted that the Supreme Court has already laid down the law that in such cases, even if the law does not apparently require that a hearing be given to the party concerned, nevertheless, to avoid arbitrary action and in compliance with the requirements of the principles of natural justice, a show cause notice is necessary. Reliance was placed in support of this submission, on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc., etc. v. Union of India etc., etc., 1981 AIR(SC) 818. As against this, Mr.S.S. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that Sec.184(8) of the Act does not provide for the issuance of any show cause notice. However, the Section gives a mandatory period of 15 days to demolish any illegal structure. Thus, according to the learned counsel, within this period of 15 days the petitioner could have shown any cause against the proposed demolition. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice are being violated in this case. In addition, Mr. Rao submitted that the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. Usgaokar, is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case and on the contrary the principles laid down in the said case help the respondent and not the petitioner. In fact, the Supreme Court laid down that in cases where a review is contemplated in such cases the principles of natural justice are not to be envisaged in a provision of law. Now, according to the learned counsel, a review of the Order of the Chief Officer was possible by virtue of Secs.293 and 303 of the Municipalities Act, which respectively enable the Collector to suspend such orders when unlawful and given powers to the Government to look into the illegality of such orders.