Bombay High Court Quashes Collector's Order Against Village Panchayat for Violation of Natural Justice — Notice Required Before Adverse Administrative Action Under Goa Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1988. Hoarding Removal Order Set Aside as Panchayat Was Not Given Prior Hearing.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 184
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Village Panchayat of Calangute and its Sarpanch filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12th January 2005 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, North Goa, directing removal of hoardings erected by the Panchayat. The petitioners contended that the hoardings were erected in exercise of powers under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and that no notice was given before the impugned order. The respondents argued that under the amended Section 3 of the Goa Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1988 and a State Government notification, the Panchayat was required to obtain permission from the Collector before displaying hoardings, and since no permission was obtained, the order was valid and no notice was necessary. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the rival contentions but held that the petitioners ought to have been given notice by the Collector before the order was passed, as the order adversely affected them. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Notice Before Adverse Order - Goa Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1988, Section 3 - The Collector passed an order dated 12th January 2005 directing removal of hoardings erected by the Village Panchayat of Calangute without any prior notice to the Panchayat. The High Court held that even if the Panchayat was required to obtain permission under the Act, the Collector ought to have given notice before passing the order, as the order adversely affected the Panchayat's rights. The impugned order was quashed and set aside solely on the ground of violation of natural justice. (Paras 3-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Collector could pass an order directing removal of hoardings erected by the Village Panchayat without giving prior notice to the Panchayat, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The impugned order dated 12th January 2005 is quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Natural justice
  • Notice requirement
  • Administrative order
  • Goa Prevention of Defacement of Property Act
  • 1988
  • Section 3
  • Goa Panchayat Raj Act
  • 1994
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 215

Writ Petition No. 149/2005

2005-08-22

R.M. Lodha, N.A. Britto

A.N.S. Nadkarni with H.D. Naik for petitioners; S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with L. Dharwadkar for respondents

The Village Panchayat of Calangute and The Sarpanch

Collector & District Magistrate, North Goa and Executive Engineer, W.D. XVII (R), Public Works Department

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging an order of the Collector directing removal of hoardings erected by the Village Panchayat.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the Collector's order dated 12th January 2005.

Filing Reason

The order was passed without giving prior notice to the petitioners, violating principles of natural justice.

Issues

Whether the Collector could pass an order directing removal of hoardings without giving prior notice to the Village Panchayat.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners: Hoardings were erected under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994; no notice was given before the impugned order. Respondents: Under amended Section 3 of the Goa Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1988 and a notification, permission from Collector was required; no notice was necessary.

Ratio Decidendi

Even if a statutory provision requires prior permission, an order adversely affecting a party cannot be passed without giving that party an opportunity of being heard, as principles of natural justice demand notice before such an order.

Judgment Excerpts

It is not in dispute and rather it is admitted before us that no notice was given to the petitioners by the Collector and District Magistrate, North Goa, Panaji before passing the Order dated 12th January, 2005. We do not intend to go into the merits of the rival contentions, but we are surely of the view that the petitioners ought to have been given notice by the Collector before the impugned order dated 12th January, 2005 came to be passed.

Procedural History

The Village Panchayat of Calangute and its Sarpanch filed Writ Petition No. 149/2005 in the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the Collector's order dated 12th January 2005. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 22nd August 2005.

Acts & Sections

  • Goa Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1988: Section 3
  • Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Bombay Allows Writ Petition Against Cancellation of 5% Sports Reservation Eligibility Certificate. Cancellation of Certificate Granted Under Government Resolution Dated 1 July 2016 Set Aside, Petitioner’s Runner-Up Achie...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Special Leave Petition Against Orissa High Court Order Upholding Total Ban on Saw Mills in Prohibited Forest Area. Proviso to Section 4(1) of Orissa Saw Mills & Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991 Imposing Absolute Prohibition Within...