AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 138

4.18. Earlier Gujarat case laying down certain propositions.-

In an earlier case,1 the Gujarat High Court (per. Ravani, J.) has indicated what is just, fair and reasonable procedure in such type of cases, in these terms:-

"(i) The respondent authorities shall not take any action of removal of the petitioners from the business premises occupied by them without affording them an opportunity of being heard.

(ii) Such opportunity of being heard would also include:

(a) notice in writing to be served upon each of the occupant, calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the place in question;

(b) the occupant concerned shall be afforded an opportunity of leading evidence in response to the notice; and

(c) the occupant concerned shall also be afforded an opportunity of being heard in person either by himself or through an Advocate;

(iii) In case the respondent authorities, after the enquiry as stated hereinabove, come to the conclusion that the occupant concerned is required to be removed from the place, and any decision adverse to the occupant is taken, the same (shall not be implemented for a period of one month from the date of communication to the occupant.

(iv) The order that may be passed by the respondent-authorities shall be served upon the occupant preferably by registered A.D. post. The same shall also be sent by an ordinary post under certificate of posting, and the order shall also be affixed on the premises in question."

1. Nehru Marg Cabin Association v. Modasa Nagar Palika, 1988 (1) GLR 441 (444-445), para. 6.



Legislative Protection for Slum and Pavement Dwellers Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys