Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Pedro Joao Rodrigues and Pobres Calista Rodrigues, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16/7/2018 by which the Minister of Town and Country Planning (respondent no.6) granted technical clearance for a wall constructed by respondent nos.4 and 5 (Fready Rodrigues and Blanche Louis de Souza). The petitioners were complainants in the matter, opposing the construction. The record showed that the Town and Country Planning Department (respondent no.2) had denied technical clearance on at least two earlier occasions on the ground that the wall was constructed without leaving appropriate access. Despite these denials, the Minister granted clearance without hearing the petitioners. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the allegations but focused on the decision-making process. It held that since the department had twice taken a view adverse to the respondents, the minimum requirement before reconsidering the application was to hear the complainant. As this was not done, the impugned order was set aside. The court directed the respondent no.2 to decide the application afresh after hearing all parties, including the petitioners, within four weeks. The court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the technical clearance.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Technical Clearance - The Minister granted technical clearance for a wall construction after the department had twice denied it on grounds of inadequate access, without hearing the complainant who had opposed the construction. The High Court held that the decision-making process was flawed as the complainant was entitled to be heard before reversing the earlier view. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing all parties. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the grant of technical clearance for a wall construction by the Minister, without hearing the complainant who had earlier succeeded in obtaining denial of clearance, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 16/7/2018 granting technical clearance is set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to decide the application for technical clearance afresh after hearing all parties, including the petitioners, within four weeks. Rule is made absolute in these terms.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to be heard
- decision-making process
- technical clearance
- construction without access
