S RAMA GOPAL Vs. M C H

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are questioning the notices dated 14-12-1992 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation (1st respondent). The notices were purportedlyissued under Section 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. All the notices are similar in printed forms. The notice in the case of 2nd petitioner reads as follows:

(2.) The first thing to be noticed is that Section 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act has no application here. The work has already been executed and the unauthorised garage or shop has already been built up. The question of stopping the work as directed in the notice does not really arise in this case. The learned standing Counsel for for the Corporation, Mr. Pratap Reddy has not seriously disputed this position. The second infirmity in the notices is that the exact nature of violation and the Section, Rule or Bye-law which has been contravened is not spelt out in the impugned notices. The inapplicable sections or portions in the printed proforma have not been struck off. The result is that the notices are couched in vaguest terms. A bald description - 'unauthorised shop'or 'unauthorised garage' or 'unauthorised cement shop' does not indicate with reasonable certainty what exactly the allegation is against the petitioners and how and why it is unauthorised. The particular Section, Rule or Bye-law Which has been violated or under which action is proposed to be taken has not been clearly indicated. The reference has been made to a dozen sections many of which are wholly inapplicable. In the counter, yet other Sections, namely (not clear) have been mentioned. Thus, the notices have been issued in a very casual and mechanical manner without application of mind to the legal requirement. Though the need to curb unauthorised constructions or unauthorised uses need not be over-emphasised, at the same time, the Municipal authorities should bestow sufficient care and attention while issuing the notices or before taking drastic action against errant persons. The show cause notice under the relevant provision specifying the nature and details of violation and the action proposed to be taken shall precede the final order that may be passed under the relevant provisions of law. These are the essential requirements of the principles of natural justice. Unless there is strict or substantial compliance with the provisions contained in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, the drastic and sweeping powers of stoppage of work, demolition or placing restraints on carrying on their business cannot be resorted to by the municipal authorities. I have to say all this because the defective notices have become a common feature of the action taken by the Municipal Corporation in many of the cases pertaining to violation of Building rules, encroachments and the like. It is high thne that the Municipal authorities should realise the need to comply with the mandatory requirements of law and afford opportunity to the affected person to represent his case effectively before taking any action. The decision-making process is as important as the final decision itself.

(3.) In view of the defects and infirmities in the notices issued to the petitioners, the notices are hereby quashed. The respondents are at liberty to initiate, fresh action by giving notice under the relevant and applicable provisions. In the show cause notice which the respondents may choose to issue, the exact nature of violation and the contravention of the particular section, rule or bye-law must be specifically mentioned so as to enable the petitioners to make an effective representation about the proposed action.The points made in the representations filed by the petitioners shall be duly considered by the competent authority and final orders or notices issued shall be communicated to the petitioners.