OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions have been filed against the action initiated by the respondents against the petitioners under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and in view of the commonness of the main grievance made by the petitioners that although they have submitted their replies to the show cause notices issued to them under Section 12(2) of the Act, the respondents have ordered/are threatening, to demolish their constructions without giving an opportunity of hearing and without giving reasons, we deem it appropriate to decide all the writ petitions by a common order.

(2.) THE action has been taken against the petitioners in view of the directions given by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6058 of 1994 (M/s Gurdial Shyam Lal Pvt. Limited v. State of Haryana and others, 1996(1) RRR 272(P&H) decided on 28.4.1995, 1995(3) 111 PLR 1). Since similar matters have been coming up before this Court and even the Government is approaching this Court for extension of time to carry out the directions given on 28.4.1995, we have directed Shri R.N. Raina, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana to accept notice of the writ petitions and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) IN the purported compliance of the directions given by this Court, the functionaries of the Town and Country Planning Department of the Government of Haryana and that of Public Works Department (Building and Roads Branch), issued notices to a large number of the persons and called upon them to show cause as to why the unauthorised encroachments and constructions made by them be not demolished. In the last few months, writ petitions have been filed by the persons to whom notices have been issued. They included the Government agencies, private individuals, firms and companies. In most of the cases, similar notices have been issued to the petitioners. Replies have been filed by such persons and in each case, printed/cyclostyled orders have been passed by the competent authorities directing removal of encroachments and demolition of the buildings in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In none of such orders including those which have been impugned in the present writ petitions, any indication has been given by the competent authority about the consideration of the objections filed by the parties to whom notices have been given and there is nothing in any of these orders for demolition to show that the competent authority has, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence produced by such parties, recorded a reasoned conclusion that a particular building or construction is contrary to the provisions of the Act. To us, it is apparent that the authorities have not properly understood the requirements of the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice. Though there can be no two views that the respondents are duty bound to faithfully carry out the order dated 28.4.1995 and remove all unauthorised encroachments and unauthorised constructions brought about in violation of the Act, but, before an order of demolition or removal is passed, there is a duty imposed on the competent authority to objectively consider the representation submitted by an affected person in response to the show cause notice and pass a reasoned order. Learned State Counsel also agreed that the orders passed in these cases do not satisfy the requirements of a reasoned order.