Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Chitrakala, a resident of Bengaluru, was engaged in some activity in her residential premises. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) issued a notice to her on 30.08.2018, which she challenged by filing Writ Petition No.40663/2018 before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court, by order dated 11.02.2019, disposed of that petition with a direction to the BBMP to determine whether the activity conducted by the petitioner was permissible in terms of the notification dated 20.03.2015. Pursuant to this direction, the Commissioner of BBMP passed an order dated 16.03.2019, bearing No.PSR(4)/11664/2018-19, declining to accept the claim of the petitioner and directing that the activity cannot be allowed to continue. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the said order. The primary legal issue was whether the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the rule 'he who decides must hear'. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without affording her an opportunity of hearing, despite the earlier court direction. The respondents, represented by the State Government Pleader and counsel for BBMP, did not dispute the lack of hearing. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner, which was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the order was passed in gross violation of the rudimentary principle of law 'he who decides must hear'. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 16.03.2019, and directed the Commissioner of BBMP to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. The Court also directed that the fresh order be passed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - 'He who decides must hear' - The Commissioner of BBMP passed an order dated 16.03.2019 declining the petitioner's claim without hearing her, despite a prior court direction to determine the matter after hearing. The High Court held that the order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and quashed it, directing the Commissioner to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner. (Paras 1-5) B) Municipal Law - Home-Based Occupation - Notification dated 20.03.2015 - The petitioner was running a home-based activity in her residential premises. The BBMP issued a notice on 30.08.2018, which was challenged in W.P. No.40663/2018. The Court directed the BBMP to determine whether the activity was permissible under the notification dated 20.03.2015. The Commissioner passed the impugned order without hearing the petitioner, which was set aside. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of BBMP declining the petitioner's claim without affording an opportunity of hearing is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner of BBMP is quashed. The Commissioner is directed to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- audi alteram partem
- he who decides must hear
- violation of principles of natural justice
- order without hearing is void
