Case Number: 2025/HC/001Petitioner: Ajay VermaRespondents: State Government & OthersThe petitioner has filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court, alleging that the respondents have violated his constitutional rights. The petitioner claims that he has been deprived of his property rights (Article 300A) and that the action taken against him is in contravention of the principles of natural justice.The petitioner contends that the Municipal Corporation, without issuing a proper legal notice, declared his commercial property as encroached and proceeded to demolish it. According to the petitioner, the order issued by the Municipal Corporation did not specify clear reasons, nor was he given a reasonable opportunity to present his case. Therefore, the action taken was arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional.The petitioner argued that any citizen cannot be deprived of their property without following the due process of law. In support of this, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in "M.C. Mehta v. Union of India" (AIR 1987 SC 1086), where it was held that any administrative action taken in violation of the principles of natural justice would be rendered void.In response, the State Government submitted a counter-affidavit arguing that the petitioner had engaged in unauthorized construction in violation of the Municipal Corporation Act. Under Sections 343 and 344 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, the competent authority has the power to issue orders for the removal of any illegal construction. The respondents further claimed that multiple notices had been issued to the petitioner, but he failed to respond within the stipulated time.After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court observed that adherence to the principles of natural justice is crucial in administrative decisions. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in "Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation" (AIR 1985 SC 180), the Court held that evicting a person or demolishing property without providing prior notice and an opportunity for a hearing violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.The Court further directed that if the respondents fail to prove that proper legal notice was served on the petitioner, the demolition action shall be declared illegal. Consequently, the Court ordered the Municipal Corporation to restore the property to its original condition or provide appropriate compensation. Additionally, the respondents were instructed to ensure compliance with due legal procedure in any future actions of a similar nature.Through this judgment, the Court reaffirmed the significance of following due process in administrative proceedings and upheld the protection of citizens' fundamental rights. Case Number: 2025/HC/001Petitioner: Ajay VermaRespondents: State Government & OthersThe petitioner has filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court, alleging that the respondents have violated his constitutional rights. The petitioner claims that he has been deprived of his property rights (Article 300A) and that the action taken against him is in contravention of the principles of natural justice.The petitioner contends that the Municipal Corporation, without issuing a proper legal notice, declared his commercial property as encroached and proceeded to demolish it. According to the petitioner, the order issued by the Municipal Corporation did not specify clear reasons, nor was he given a reasonable opportunity to present his case. Therefore, the action taken was arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional.The petitioner argued that any citizen cannot be deprived of their property without following the due process of law. In support of this, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in "M.C. Mehta v. Union of India" (AIR 1987 SC 1086), where it was held that any administrative action taken in violation of the principles of natural justice would be rendered void.In response, the State Government submitted a counter-affidavit arguing that the petitioner had engaged in unauthorized construction in violation of the Municipal Corporation Act. Under Sections 343 and 344 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, the competent authority has the power to issue orders for the removal of any illegal construction. The respondents further claimed that multiple notices had been issued to the petitioner, but he failed to respond within the stipulated time.After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court observed that adherence to the principles of natural justice is crucial in administrative decisions. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in "Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation" (AIR 1985 SC 180), the Court held that evicting a person or demolishing property without providing prior notice and an opportunity for a hearing violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.The Court further directed that if the respondents fail to prove that proper legal notice was served on the petitioner, the demolition action shall be declared illegal. Consequently, the Court ordered the Municipal Corporation to restore the property to its original condition or provide appropriate compensation. Additionally, the respondents were instructed to ensure compliance with due legal procedure in any future actions of a similar nature.Through this judgment, the Court reaffirmed the significance of following due process in administrative proceedings and upheld the protection of citizens' fundamental rights. Submit