ANIL ARORA Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, MAPUSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Raghunandan, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. The learned Additional Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) Upon hearing the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned Stop Work Order dated 23.7.2015 issued by the learned Deputy Collector has no sanction in law. The learned Senior Advocate points out that pursuant to the notice, the petitioner sought for the relevant documents from the respondent no.1 to enable him to file a reply. The learned Senior Advocate further submits that as such material was not supplied, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file an appropriate reply and the respondent no.1 proceeded to fix the matter for arguments. The learned Senior Advocate further submits that the respondent no.1 has no jurisdiction or powers in terms of GCZMA Regulation to issue such direction and as such the purported action by the respondent no.1 is without any legal sanction. The learned Senior counsel further points out that the activities carried out by the petitioner are in accordance with law and no illegality has been committed by the petitioner. The learned Senior Advocate, further points out that, in any event, the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 dated 9.9.2015 foreclosing the right of the petitioner to file a reply is in breach of the principles of natural justice and it deserves to be quashed and set aside.