Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Bail For Man Accused of Assault Causing Miscarriage  ||  J&K&L High Court Invalidates Residence-Based Reservation, Citing Violation of Article 16  ||  Kerala HC Denies Parole to Life Convict in TP Chandrasekharan Murder Case For Cousin's Funeral  ||  High Court Grants Bail to J&K Bank Manager in Multi-Crore Loan Fraud Case, Emphasizing Bail As Rule  ||  J&K HC: Civil Remedy Alone Cannot Be Used To Quash Criminal Proceedings in Enso Tower Case  ||  Delhi HC: Non-Proof of Hearing Notice Dispatch Doesn’t by Itself Show no Personal Hearing Was Given  ||  Delhi High Court: No Construction or Residence Allowed on Yamuna Floodplains, Even For Graveyards  ||  J&K High Court: Right to Speedy Trial Includes Appeals; Closes 46-Year-Old Criminal Case Due to Delay  ||  J&K High Court: Courts Must Not Halt Corruption Probes, Refuses to Quash FIR  ||  J&K&L HC: Matrimonial Remedies May Overlap, But Cruelty Claims Cannot be Selectively Invoked    

Suraj Bhan Chauhan Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation - (High Court of Delhi) (20 Jul 2021)

Before making any order under Section 338 DMC Act, the Commissioner shall give reasonable opportunity to the person affected

MANU/DE/1332/2021

Civil

Petitioner impugns order whereby the respondent Corporation has revoked the sanctioned building plan under Section 338 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Act). The Petitioner submits that, no show cause notice was ever served on the Petitioner. He submits that, a show cause notice dated 4th June, 2021 was served on the architect and from the architect, the Petitioner got to know of the same and accordingly sent a reply, however, the impugned order records that, no reply to the said show cause notice has been received till then despite passage of stipulated time. The Petitioner submits that, no hearing as mandated under Section 338 of the DMC Act has been granted to the Petitioner.

Proviso to Section 338 of the DMC Act mandates that before making any order under Section 338 of DMC Act, the Commissioner shall give reasonable opportunity to the person affected, as to why such order should not be made.

In the present case, the show cause notice dated 4th June, 2021 is alleged to have been sent to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has filed a reply to the show cause notice which was received in the office of the SDMC on 18.06.2021 and specifically stated that notice has not been served upon him and he got to know of the same from the architect.

However, the impugned order records that no reply to the show cause notice has been received which clearly establishes that the reply given by the Petitioner has not been taken into account at the time of passing the impugned order. Accordingly, there is ex facie breach of the principles of natural justice as mandated by Section 338 of the DMC Act. On this count alone, order cannot be sustained. Impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Respondents to pass a fresh speaking order on the show cause notice dated 4th June, 2021 after giving an opportunity of a hearing to the Petitioner. Petition is disposed off.

Tags : PRINCIPLES   NATURAL JUSTICE   BREACH  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved