Notice Of Hearing Must Be Issued To Petitioner & Not His Counsel When Court Seeks To Grant Hearing To All Interested Parties: MP High Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently underscored that notice of proceedings should have been issued to the petitioner and not his counsel in the matter.

The single-judge bench of Justice Pranay Verma observed that when a direction was issued by the court to grant the opportunity of hearing to all interested parties, including the petitioner, the respondent-Joint Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning was obligated to issue notice to the petitioner himself.

Pursuant to a High Court order, the Joint Director had decided on an earlier application of the petitioner dated 1/11/2022 and the fresh application filed by him on 28/3/2023.

“…In the order it has been stated that notice of the proceedings was issued to the complainant Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, Advocate but he did not appear before respondent No.2. From a perusal of the entire order it is evident that respondent No.2 has considered Shri Vibhor Khandelwal to be the complainant in the case…”, the bench sitting at Indore noted.

The complainant, who preferred the representation, made it through Advocate Vibhor Khandelwal. This was not sufficient reason for the Joint Director to presume that Vibhor Khandelwal is the complainant whereas the complainant remained to be the petitioner himself, the court opined.

“…Recording in the impugned order that despite issuance of notices to the petitioner on three occasions, he has not appeared is hence factually incorrect. It was incumbent upon respondent No.2 to have issued notice to the petitioner and not to his counsel…” the court clarified by referring to its earlier order dated 25.01.2023 wherein a specific direction was given to the Joint Director to grant hearing to all the concerned parties before deciding the representations.

On 25/1/2023, the High Court issued a direction to respondent No.2 in a writ petition to decide the pending representation dated 1/11/2022 within a period of 3 months after affording due opportunity of hearing to all interested parties.

The single-judge bench, therefore, held the Joint Director's order to be in contravention of the High Court order dated 25.01.2023 and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh adjudication.

For Petitioner: Adv. Jayesh Gurnani

For State: Advocate Kapil Mahant

Case Title: Shailendra Porwal v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development & Anr.

Case No: Writ Petition No. 10330 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 71

Click Here To Read/ Download Order