MARTHA GRACIAS Vs. SHAIKH BASIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 28/1/2016 in Municipal Appeal No.23/2012 and the order dated 3/7/2014 passed in Misc. Application No.83/2012/Intervener, in the said appeal. By the impugned order dated 3/7/2014, the Tribunal has refused to allow the petitioner to intervene in the appeal. By the judgment dated 28/1/2016, the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal and while setting aside the final notice of demolition issued to the respondent no.1 on 23/4/2012, has directed for carrying out inspection of the premises, in the presence of the respondent no.1 (the appellant before the tribunal) and thereafter to issue a show cause notice, along with the document of transgression and description and pass a reasoned order, after giving a 'reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.1'.

(2.) The brief facts are that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the petitioner, action was taken against the respondent no.1 which culminated into the final notice of demolition being issued. That was challenged by the respondent no.1 before the Tribunal in which the aforesaid order is passed.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that section 184 (12) of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 (Act for short) provides that the Chief Officer may, without issuing a notice, cause any premises to be inspected. It is submitted that thus there is no requirement contemplated under the provisions of section 184(12) which requires the Chief Officer to issue a prior notice before carrying out inspection. It is submitted that the direction of the tribunal to issue, a prior notice is against the provisions of section 184(12) of the Act. Secondly, it is contended that the Act also does not contemplate a personal hearing being given to the person proceeded against. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sopan Maruti Thopte and another etc. Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and anr. AIR 1996 Bom. 304, in which, in the context of similar provisions contained in the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888, the Division Bench has held that personal hearing is not a must. It is submitted that the Tribunal may follow the same line in other matters and in such circumstances, it is necessary for this Court to clarify the legal position.