The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that even in matters of municipal enforcement, the right to a fair hearing is not a formality but a constitutional imperative. The quashing of a demolition notice issued without meaningful opportunity to respond marks a critical affirmation of procedural due process in urban governance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, representing the estate of the late Prabhudayal Dadariya, challenged a notice issued by the Municipal Council of Bijawar directing the immediate vacating and dismantling of a shop constructed in 1991. The shop, located at Ward No.4, Bus Stand, was originally allotted to the petitioner’s father and governed by a lease deed valid until 2028. The Municipal Council, despite receiving a detailed response to its earlier inquiry on 30.04.2025, issued a coercive notice on 17.10.2025 alleging structural dilapidation without any independent assessment or technical report.
Procedural History
- 1991: Shop constructed with municipal permission
- 23.10.2019: Lease deed executed for tenure until 19.10.2028
- 29.04.2025: Municipal Council issued notice seeking documents
- 30.04.2025: Petitioner submitted all requested documents
- 17.10.2025: Impugned notice issued demanding demolition within seven days
- 27.01.2026: Writ petition filed and heard by Justice Vishal Mishra
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned notice and a direction for the Municipal Council to follow due process before any coercive action. The petitioner also sought interim protection from demolition pending a lawful adjudication.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a municipal authority may issue a demolition notice under its regulatory powers without providing the affected party a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and whether such an action violates the principles of natural justice under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the notice was issued in violation of the audi alteram partem principle, a foundational tenet of administrative law. He cited Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to emphasize that any state action affecting property rights must be preceded by fair procedure. The absence of a site inspection, expert report, or prior notice of intent to demolish rendered the notice arbitrary and mala fide. The lease deed and construction permission were valid and subsisting, and the claim of dilapidation was unsubstantiated.
For the Respondent/State
The Government Advocate conceded that the notice was procedurally flawed but sought to justify it as a precautionary measure. He stated that the Municipal Council intended to grant a fresh hearing and would not enforce demolition until a new order was passed. He did not contest the absence of prior hearing but offered a voluntary assurance of non-coercive action pending review.
The Court's Analysis
The Court held that the respondent’s reliance on a voluntary assurance of non-enforcement could not cure the fundamental defect in procedure. The right to be heard is not contingent on the goodwill of the authority but is a constitutional obligation. The Court observed that natural justice is not a technicality but a safeguard against arbitrary state action.
"The principle of audi alteram partem is not a mere formality to be dispensed with when convenience demands. It is the very essence of rule of law and cannot be overridden by administrative expediency."
The Court rejected the notion that a post-decisional hearing suffices when the notice itself carries the threat of irreversible consequences. The impugned notice, by demanding demolition within seven days, created a coercive environment that effectively denied the petitioner any realistic opportunity to present his case. The Court emphasized that procedural fairness must precede, not follow, adverse action.
The Court further noted that the Municipal Council had not produced any structural survey, engineering report, or statutory compliance certificate to substantiate the claim of dilapidation. In the absence of such evidence, the notice was not merely procedurally defective but substantively unsupported.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 17.10.2025 and directed the Municipal Council to issue a fresh show cause notice with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. No coercive action, including demolition, shall be taken until a fresh order is passed in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Fair Hearing Is Non-Negotiable
- Municipal authorities cannot issue demolition notices based on unverified allegations
- A post-decisional hearing does not cure a violation of natural justice
- Practitioners must immediately challenge any notice that imposes immediate compliance without prior opportunity to respond
Documentary Evidence Must Be Considered
- Lease deeds and prior municipal permissions are prima facie valid unless lawfully revoked
- Allegations of structural dilapidation require independent technical verification
- Oral assertions by officials without supporting documentation are insufficient to justify demolition
Administrative Action Must Be Transparent
- All decisions affecting property rights must be accompanied by reasoned orders
- Authorities must disclose the basis of their findings before issuing coercive notices
- Delay in issuing fresh notices does not validate prior procedural violations
