JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. All these writ petitions have been filed against the action initiated by the respondents against the petitioners under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and in view of the commonness of the main grievance made by the petitioners that although they have submitted their replies to the show cause notices issued to them under Section 12(2) of the Act, the respondents have ordered/are threatening, to demolish their constructions without giving an opportunity of hearing and without giving reasons, we deem it appropriate to decide all the writ petitions by a common order.
2. The action has been taken against the petitioners in view of the directions given by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6058 of 1994 (Gurdial Shyam Lal Pvt. Limited v. State of Haryana and Ors., decided on 28.4.1995 (1995-3)111 P.L.R. 1). Since similar matters have been coming up before this Court and even the Government is approaching this Court for extension of time to carry out the directions given on 28.4.1995, we have directed Shri R.N. Raina, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana to accept notice of the writ petitions and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. While deciding Civil Writ Petition No. 6058 of 1994 on 28.4.1995 (1995-3)111 P.L.R. 1, this Court had taken note of menace caused to the public life by unauthorised encroachments and unauthorised constructions on the national highways and scheduled roads and directed that the encroachments and illegal constructions raised on the two sides of the national highways passing through the State of Haryana and other scheduled roads, which were in violation of the provisions of the Act, be removed. The Court had given time to comply with the direction upto 20.12.1995. Subsequently, in Civil Writ Petition No. 13984 of 1995 (Central Warehousing Corporation v. State of Haryana and Anr.) decided on 21.9.1995, Civil Writ Petition No. 14758 of 1995 (Rajinder Prashad and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., decided on 11.10.1995 (1996-1) 112 P.L.R. 56 and Civil Writ Petition No. 14990 of 1995 Delhi Service Centre, Kundli and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.) decided on 18.10.1995, this Court has rejected the challenge to the various provisions of the Act and held that the Act was enacted by a competent legislative body and was not ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
4. In the purported compliance of the directions given by this Court, the functionaries of the Town and Country Planning Department of the Government of Haryana and that of Public Works Department (Building and Roads Branch), issued notices to a large number of the persons and called upon them to show cause as to why the unauthorised encroachments and constructions made by them be not demolished. In the last few months, writ petitions have been filed by the persons to whom notices have been issued. They included the Government agencies, private individuals, firms and companies. In most of the cases, similar notices have been issued to the petitioners. Replies have been filed by such persons and in each case, printed/cyclostyled orders have been passed by the competent authorities directing removal of encroachments and demolition of the buildings in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In none of such orders including those which have been impugned in the present writ petitions, any indication has been given by the competent authority about the consideration of the objections filed by the parties to whom notices have been given and there is nothing in any of these orders for demolition to show that the competent authority has, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence produced by such parties, recorded a reasoned conclusion that a particular building or construction is contrary to the provisions of the Act. To us, it is apparent that the authorities have not properly understood the requirements of the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice. Though there can be no two views that the respondents are duty bound to faithfully carry out the order dated 28.4.1995 and remove all unauthorised encroachments and unauthorised constructions brought about in violation of the Act, but, before an order of demolition or removal is, passed, there is a duty imposed on the competent authority to objectively consider the representation submitted by an affected person in response to the show cause notice and pass a reasoned order. Learned State Counsel also agreed that the order passed in these case do not satisfy the requirements of a reasoned order.
5. We, therefore, allow these petitions and direct the concerned authorities to consider the representations/petitions filed by each of persons to whom notices under Section 12(2) of the Act have been issued and pass reasoned orders. In each such case an opportunity of personal hearing should be given to the affected persons, if such request is made, and due consideration should be given to the points raised by such persons before an order is passed by the competent authority. So far as these parties are concerned, we direct the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, P.W.D. (B&R), Faridabad, Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, P.W.D. (B&R), Panipat, Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, P.W.D. (B&R), (NH), Hissar, Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1 P.W.D. (B&R), Sirs-cum-Director, Town and Country Planning, Sira, Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, P.W.D. (B&R),-cum-Director, Town and Country Planning, Hansi and Executive Engineer, Provincial Sub-Division No. 2, P.W.D. (B&R), Sonepat, to pass fresh orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Such orders shall be passed within one month of the receipt of a copy of this order. We further direct that in all similar cases fresh notices and fresh opportunity of hearing should be given by the concerned authorities and fresh reasoned orders should be passed, so that the people may not be forced to come to the Court for similar directions. Demolition or removal of constructions of the petitioners shall not be carried out for a period of seven days from the passing of the orders and till this time notices/orders already issued/passed shall not be given effect.
6. A copy of this order be sent to each of the officers detailed above for compliance.