Gopal Krishan vs. State Of Hp And Others

Held

The Court held that while the withdrawal of permission was indeed issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, strict compliance with the principles of natural justice might not be feasible given the short duration of the permission (20 days). The Court observed that the permission granted was akin to a license, which can be revoked. However, the Court examined the justification for the withdrawal and found prima facie evidence from a Joint Inspection Report, supported by a photograph showing the petitioner's representative present, indicating that the petitioner had occupied an area almost twice the permitted size. Consequently, the Court upheld the Municipal Council's action in withdrawing the permission. Regarding the refund, the Court noted that the original permission did not contain any clause for forfeiture. Since no right of forfeiture was retained by the Municipal Council, it was obliged to refund the proportionate amount for the period the petitioner could not utilize the land. The Court directed the Municipal Council to refund the proportionate amount, clarifying that this could be adjusted if an inquiry, after giving the petitioner a hearing, proved he occupied more space. The amount of tax paid was explicitly stated as non-refundable.

Facts

The petitioner, Gopal Krishan, was granted permission by the Municipal Council to use 15,000 square feet of land at Dhalpur ground for a Trade Promotion and Awareness Campaign for Environment Conservation for 20 days, from June 21, 2019, to July 10, 2019. The permission was subject to a payment of ₹7,20,360/-, which included GST and TCS. Subsequently, the Municipal Council issued proceedings dated June 29, 2019, withdrawing the permission. The petitioner challenged this withdrawal in a writ petition, alleging it was passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The Municipal Council's impugned proceedings stated that the petitioner had allegedly occupied approximately 28,200 square feet, nearly double the permitted area, based on a Joint Inspection Report.

Key Issues

1. Whether the withdrawal of permission by the Municipal Council was vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice, given that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the proportionate amount paid for the period during which he could not utilize the allotted land, following the withdrawal of permission? The petitioner argued that the withdrawal of permission was arbitrary and illegal as it was passed without providing any notice or opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The respondents, represented by the Municipal Council, contended that the permission was akin to a license, which could be revoked. They also argued that the petitioner occupied an area significantly larger than permitted, as evidenced by a Joint Inspection Report. Regarding the refund, the Municipal Council initially contended that as per the terms and conditions, the petitioner was not entitled to a proportionate refund.