Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vikas Panjabrao Mathane, challenged 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 order was passed on a complaint by respondent no.3, Suraj Ramdas Mathane, who alleged that the bore well had rendered his well dry, causing loss to his orange trees. The Talathi's spot inspection report stated that the bore well was 240 ft from respondent no.3's well, the village was classified as 'critical' for water availability, and the petitioner had no permission. The Sub-Divisional Officer relied on a District Magistrate notification dated 11-02-2013 and a letter from the Senior Geologist. The petitioner contended that no notice or hearing was given before the order. The court found that the impugned order was passed ex parte without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh consideration after hearing all parties. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits and that the petitioner could raise all contentions before the authority.
Headnote
A) Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Ex Parte Order - The Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order directing closure of the petitioner's bore well and action under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2009, without issuing any notice or granting an 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).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order directing closure of a bore well and action under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2009, passed without notice or hearing to the petitioner, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 04-06-2018, and remanded the matter to respondent no.2 Sub-Divisional Officer, Achalpur, for fresh consideration after hearing all parties. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits and that the petitioner could raise all contentions before the authority.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to be heard
- ex parte order
- Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management) Act
- 2009
- Section 52
