Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Raul Prazeres, challenged an order dated 26.10.2004 passed by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (respondent no.2) directing demolition of all structures in survey no.226/2 of Mandrem Village within one month. The petitioner contended that the respondent no.2 relied on material, specifically a statement made by the Secretary of Village Panchayat, Mandrem, which was recorded in the absence of the petitioner and was not put to his notice. The court heard Mr. V. Tulzapurkar for the petitioner and Mr. M. D'Costa, Advocate General for respondents no.1 and 2. The court found that the respondent no.2 had relied on material not disclosed to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to respondent no.2 for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Reliance on undisclosed material - The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority passed a demolition order against the petitioner relying on a statement of the Secretary of Village Panchayat recorded in the absence of the petitioner and without bringing the material to his notice. Held that the order violates principles of natural justice and is unsustainable. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned demolition order passed by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority is sustainable when it relied on material not disclosed to the petitioner.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.10.2004 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Right to be Heard
- Reliance on undisclosed material
- Violation of principles of natural justice
