Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vikas Panjabrao Mathane, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 04-06-2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Achalpur (respondent no.2), which directed closure of a bore well dug by the petitioner in his field in village Belmandali, Survey No.18/3/E, and further action under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2009. The respondent no.3, Suraj Ramdas Mathane, had complained that the petitioner's bore well, dug in an adjoining field, rendered his well dry and caused loss to his orange trees. The Sub-Divisional Officer directed a spot inspection by the Talathi, who reported that the bore well was about 240 ft from respondent no.3's well, the village was classified as 'critical' for water availability, and the petitioner had not obtained any permission before digging. Based on this report and a notification dated 11-02-2013 issued by the District Magistrate, Amravati, and a letter dated 07-04-2018 from the Senior Geologist, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the impugned order. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court observed that the impugned order did not indicate any notice or hearing given to the petitioner, and the Talathi report was prepared behind his back. The court held that the order was in gross violation of natural justice and set it aside, but granted liberty to the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was allowed in those terms.
Headnote
A) Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Ex Parte Order - The Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order directing closure of bore well and action under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2009, without issuing any notice or giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Held that such an order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained (Paras 4-5). B) Groundwater Law - Bore Well Closure - Permission Requirement - The petitioner dug a bore well in a village classified as 'critical' without obtaining prior permission - The Talathi report indicated the bore well was 240 ft from respondent's well and no permission was taken - However, the impugned order was set aside solely on the ground of violation of natural justice, leaving it open to the authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer directing closure of the petitioner's bore well and action under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2009, without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04-06-2018 passed by respondent no.2 Sub-Divisional Officer is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned parties. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to be heard
- ex parte order
- Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management) Act
- 2009
- Section 52
- bore well closure
- critical area
- permission requirement
