Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s Darshan Jayant Builders (a partnership firm) and its partner Pritesh M. Jain, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 4 March 2014 passed by the Chief Officer, Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (Respondent No.4). The impugned order revoked the development permission granted to the petitioners for redevelopment of a property under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA). The petitioners contended that the order was passed without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that the revocation was justified due to alleged misrepresentation and non-compliance by the petitioners. The High Court examined the facts and found that the impugned order was indeed passed without any show-cause notice or inquiry. The court held that any administrative action affecting civil rights must comply with natural justice, and the order was therefore unsustainable. The court quashed the order and remitted the matter back to the Chief Officer for fresh consideration after giving the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Section 95A Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 - The impugned order revoking development permission was passed without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, thereby violating principles of natural justice - Held that any order affecting civil rights must be preceded by a fair hearing (Paras 10-15). B) Housing and Urban Development - Redevelopment - Revocation of Permission - Section 95A MHADA Act, 1976 - The Chief Officer revoked the development permission on grounds of alleged misrepresentation and non-compliance, but the order was passed without any prior show-cause notice or inquiry - Held that such revocation without affording an opportunity is arbitrary and illegal (Paras 16-20). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The High Court can interfere with administrative orders that are violative of natural justice and without jurisdiction - Held that the impugned order is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioners (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 4 March 2014 passed by the Chief Officer, Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, revoking the development permission granted to the petitioners, is sustainable in law and whether it violates principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 4 March 2014, and remitted the matter back to the Chief Officer, Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, for fresh consideration after giving the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Section 95A Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976
- Development Agreement
- Revocation of permission
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
