0

Application for grant of NOC should to be dealt with according to the rules in force at the date of disposal of the application: Kerala High Court

Uncategorized , , ,

Case Title: A.H. Sheriff v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Case No: WP(C) No. 33324 of 2023

Decided on:  3rd January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN 

Facts of the Case

The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application dated 28.05.2019 before the District Collector for more than four years for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for quarrying granite from revenue puramboke land. Ext.P5 Government Order bringing comprehensive guidelines for grant of NOC for mining of minerals from Government land was issued on 28.01.2021. The application of the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P4 order dated 21.09.2023, much after the issuance of guidelines in Ext.P5.

The case of the petitioner is that his application has to be considered on the basis of the law prevailing at the time of submission of the application and Ext.P5 order issued subsequently cannot be relied upon to reject the application. The learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner has no vested right to have his application considered applying any particular provision and that he has not approached this Court before issuance of Ext P5 order, seeking a direction to consider his application for NOC.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for grant of NOC has to be dealt according to the law prevailing at the time of submission of the application or rules in force at the date of disposal of the application?
  2. Whether the applicant of NOC has a vested right to have an application for grant of NOC to be dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions?

Court’s analysis and decision

The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has relied on State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone and Others [(1981) 2 SCC 205: AIR 1981 SC 711] while dealing with this writ petition. In Hind Stone case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the action of the Government in keeping applications for lease pending for long and later, rejecting them by applying a rule made subsequently, is not open to challenge. The Court observed that no one has a vested right to the grant of lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for grant of lease to be dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions and that in the absence of any vested right, the application has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force as on the date of disposal of the application despite the fact that there is long delay since the making of the application.

Though there is inordinate delay on the part of the District Collector in considering Ext.P1 application for grant of NOC for mining of minerals from Government land, since during the pendency of the application Ext.P5 Government Order has been issued providing comprehensive guidelines for grant of NOC, the application of the petitioner has to be considered in the light of Ext.P5. Ext.P5 Government Order is not under challenge in this writ petition. There is no direction sought for and obtained by the petitioner from this Court for an early consideration of Ext.P1 application before issuance of Ext.P5 Government Order. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner has no vested right to seek Ext.P1 application to be considered by applying the procedure as applicable before the issuance of Ext.P5.

The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click to read the judgement

0

No Other Consent Required If The Statutory Right To Reconstruction Is Established: High Of Bombay

Uncategorized , , , ,

Title: Chandralok People Welfare Association v. State of Maharashtra

Coram : Gs Patel & Kamal Khata, Jj

Dated : 18th October 2023

Introduction:

The Petitioner is a Welfare Association. It says or claims to have as its membership, seven persons who are in its Managing Committee and fully 103 persons who are or were monthly tenants of the Chandralok building at Sudhakar Dubey Compound. The Association is registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.

Facts:

The building was constructed in 1965. It outlived its life. It does not seem to have been subjected even to normal or routine repairs and certainly not to more intensive repairs as the passage of time may have required. By 2014, the building had deteriorated considerably. Then came to pass the usual process of obtaining structural audit reports of the construction. Ultimately these resulted in the second Respondent, the MCGM represented by Mr Waghmare categorizing the building in the C-1 category. This meant that it was dilapidated, dangerous, uninhabitable and required to be pulled down.

The building received notices inter alia under Section 353-B on 10th April 2019 and then a notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (“MMC Act”) on 24th June 2019 is not in dispute. The building was vacated on 16th July 2019 and was demolished. Respondent claims that this demolition is in violation of orders of the City Civil Court, particularly an order dated 11th July 2019.

Since July 2019 all 103 tenants are off-site, scattered across the city, their once tightly-knit community fractured. Since then, and this is the number of the complaint, they have seen no vestige or semblance of any proposal for reconstruction or redevelopment.

Court’s Judgement and Analysis:

The court on the basis of circumstances and because of finding no answer at all to either the Petition or even to queries of this Court in the Affidavit of Respondent, made the Rule partly absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) permitting the Petitioner Association to apply to the MCGM for permission for reconstruction of the demolished building. And regarding the question of transit accommodation or transit rent, court did not find a specific provision to that effect in the MMC Act. So the petitioner were directed towards Maharashtra Rent Control Act ,1999 to find a remedy.

Furthermore it was decided that subject to any orders in Rent Act proceedings, all tenants will continue as tenants in the reconstructed building. The mere pendency of a rent proceeding will not disentitle any tenant to possession of reconstructed premises. The association must make its own arrangements for financing the reconstruction. court have only affirmed their statutory right to reconstruction and the MCGM’s obligation to permit it without requiring the prior consent of Respondents.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement