Opportunity Of Being Heard Necessary: Rajasthan HC Asks Tehsildar To Hear The Poultry Farmer Before Ordering Him To Shift His Farm

The observation came from Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur:

"A bare perusal of the Annex. 5 dated 09.09.2016 shows that the petitioner has not been extended any opportunity of hearing before passing the notice impugned. This Court feels that since the notice impugned 09.09.2016 having evil consequences, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the petitioner."

In the present matter, the petitioner was an owner of a poultry farm who moved the court challenging the notice issued by Tehsildar for shifting of the poultry farm without extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Petitioner argued that he has complied with all the eligibility and requisite qualifications and a 'No objection certificate' for running the poultry farm.

Respondent argued that the petitioner was running a poultry farm in contravention of the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. He also submitted that an inspection was conducted at the poultry farm of the petitioner and certain deficiencies were pointed out but the said deficiencies were not removed. Therefore, he submitted that the notice issued by the Tehsildar for shifting the poultry farm from the existing place was just and proper.

The court said that the petitioner is running the poultry farm in Village Musaliya since 1998 and for this purpose a "No Objection Certificate" was issued by the Gram Panchayat, Musaliya in 1998 itself. Further, it recorded that although, it is mentioned in the notice dated 09.09.2016 issued by respondent No. 2 that an inspection was conducted by the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board and certain deficiencies were pointed out. It was noted that although the heading of notice is stated on Annex. 5 dated 09.09.2016 but a direction has been issued to the petitioner to shift his poultry farm to some other place.

In view of the above, the court disposed of the writ with direction to the petitioner to appear before respondent No. 2-Tehsildar within a period of ten days from today and submit a detailed representation supporting his case.

Respondent no 2 was directed to consider the same and decide the representation of the petitioner after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to him.

Case Title : Mumtaz Mohd. V District Collector Pali and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 163

Click Here To Read/Download Order