Whether municipal Corporation must hear applicant before deciding application for grant of construction permission?

  Mr. Aney the learned counsel for the respondent no.7 countered this argument by saying that action under section 45 is to sanction and what is required by Planning Authority is to see that the development plan as put in with the application under section 44 conforms to the requirements of law, rules, instructions, byelaws etc, framed in that behalf by the Planning authority. That being a pure administrative action there is no question of principles of natural justice being attracted in the consideration of the application under section 45. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Tulzapurkar that section 45 postulates grant of hearing of the objectors. Firstly because the process of granting application under that section is purely a mechanical and administrative process. The authority has to process the application for development and on finding it to be in conformity with the requirements of law grant it, and if they are not in conformity, it will be rejected. There is therefore no room for granting any hearing to any person. The provisions of section 45 if read in whole, do not contemplate hearing even to the person applying under section 44 and the only remedy available to such person after the order is made is that, without hearing as contemplated by section 45, it will have to be held that both the applicant and the objectors if any, are entitled to hearing. The very fact that no such hearing as contemplated by provisions of section 45 is evident from the fact that the appeal is made available to persons aggrieved by grant of or refusal of permission under that section. In our opinion putting such prayer under section 45 is also hazard or to put in objections in various multi crore development plan the claim demand and delaying the execution of the development scheme. Such is not the intention of section 45 and therefore we reject the submission that it postulates the hearing. {Para 16}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

V.G. PALSHIKAR AND P.V. KAKADE, JJ.

The Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Writ Petition No.2591 of 2001

26th July, 2002

Citation: 2002(4) ALL MR 429,2003(1) BOM CR 251

Read full Judgment here: Click here