Case Note & Summary
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa, a writ petition was filed by Mrs. Celina Almeida challenging the judgment dated 29.05.2007 passed by the Minister of Urban Development, Goa, which allowed an appeal by the respondent no.3 against the revocation of construction licences. The petitioner had objected to development permissions granted by the Corporation of the City of Panaji to respondent no.3. After a show cause notice, the Corporation revoked the licences. Respondent no.3 appealed to the Minister. Earlier, in Writ Petition No. 134 of 2007, the High Court had directed the Minister to hear the petitioner. However, during the appellate proceedings, the petitioner claimed she was not given an adequate hearing. The Minister directed parties to file written arguments, but no oral hearing was provided. The petitioner learned of the disposal of the appeal on 30.05.2010 through a caveat notice. The petitioner alleged breach of natural justice, asserting that oral submissions were essential. The court considered submissions from both sides. The petitioner argued that the denial of oral hearing violated natural justice, relying on Apex Court precedents that written submissions cannot substitute oral arguments. Respondent no.3 contended that parties had consented to written submissions and the order was on merits. Respondent no.1 indicated willingness to give a fresh hearing. The court, referring to judgments in Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority and Prakash Ratan Sinha v. State of Bihar, held that in cases resulting in civil consequences, a party is entitled to an adequate hearing, which includes the right to advance oral arguments. The court found that the Minister had acted in gross violation of natural justice, rendering the appellate order vitiated. Consequently, the impugned judgment was quashed and set aside. The appeal was restored to the file of the Minister with a direction to dispose of it afresh after giving an adequate hearing to all parties, allowing oral submissions. The writ petition was thus allowed.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Right to Oral Hearing in Addition to Written Submissions - City of Corporation Act - The appellate authority disposed of an appeal without providing oral hearing, relying only on written submissions. The petitioner contended violation of natural justice. Court held that written submissions are not a substitute for oral arguments and violation of natural justice vitiates the order. Impugned judgment quashed, appeal restored for fresh hearing. (Paras 4-8, 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate order passed by the Minister of Urban Development without providing an oral hearing to the petitioner is in breach of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
Impugned judgment dated 29.05.2007 quashed and set aside. Corporation Appeal No. Min(UD)/21/06 restored to the file of respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously after hearing parties in accordance with law. Rule made absolute. Petition disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- In cases involving civil consequences
- a party is entitled to adequate hearing
- including oral submissions
- written submissions are not a substitute for oral arguments
- violation of natural justice vitiates the order
- appellate authority must comply with rules of natural justice.
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (02) 79
Writ Petition No. 293 of 2007
Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. Somnath Karpe, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. S. Dhargalkar, Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 1(a); Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for respondent no.2; Mr. V. P. Thali, Advocate for respondent no.3
1. Minister of Urban Development, State of Goa; 1(a) State of Goa, Through the Secretary, Urban Development; 2. The Corporation of the City of Panaji, Through its Commissioner; 3. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Harmalkar, Proprietor of M/s Navami Constructions
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Minister of Urban Development, Goa allowing an appeal against the revocation of construction licences.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the judgment dated 29.05.2007 passed by respondent no.1 and restore the appeal for fresh hearing with adequate opportunity of oral submissions.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged violation of natural justice as she was not given an oral hearing before the Minister allowed the appeal against the revocation order that benefited respondent no.3.
Previous Decisions
In Writ Petition No. 134 of 2007, the High Court directed respondent no.1 to hear the petitioner. Respondent no.2 had revoked licences vide Revocation Order No.4/18/TS/2006-CCP/5098 dated 10.11.2006. The impugned judgment allowed the appeal and set aside that revocation order.
Issues
Whether the impugned appellate order passed by the Minister of Urban Development without providing an oral hearing to the petitioner is in breach of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that no adequate hearing was given; the earlier writ petition direction for hearing was not complied with; written submissions are not a substitute for oral arguments; breach of natural justice vitiated the order; also contended on merits that respondent no.3 had no title to the property.
Respondent no.3 supported the impugned order, contending that the Minister rightly considered the material on record and that parties had voluntarily agreed to file written submissions, thus no hearing violation occurred.
Respondent no.2 stated that the revocation order was rightly issued.
Respondent nos. 1 and 1(a) submitted that a fresh hearing could be given if the court deemed fit.
Ratio Decidendi
In cases where the disposal of a dispute by a statutory authority results in civil consequences, a party is entitled to an adequate hearing, which includes the opportunity to make oral submissions; written submissions are not a substitute for oral arguments. Failure to provide such hearing vitiates the order for breach of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The Apex Court has even given observation that the written submission is not a substitute to oral submissions as in the course of the oral submissions a party has an opportunity to seek for clarification or clear any doubt in the disposal of the dispute.
In the present case, the respondent no.1 has acted in gross breach and in violation of principle of natural justice and consequently, on this ground alone the impugned judgment passed by the respondent no.1 stands vitiated.
Procedural History
Respondent no.2 issued licences to respondent no.3 for development; petitioner objected; after show cause notice, respondent no.2 revoked licences on 10.11.2006; respondent no.3 appealed to respondent no.1; in Writ Petition No. 134 of 2007, High Court directed respondent no.1 to hear the petitioner; respondent no.1 directed written arguments but no oral hearing; impugned judgment dated 29.05.2007 allowed appeal setting aside revocation; petitioner filed present writ petition; High Court quashed the order and remanded for fresh hearing.
Acts & Sections
