- Case
- SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS AUTH. REP. JAYANT GAUNKER v. STATE OF GOA, THR. ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS. (Bombay High Court, 20-03-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Principles of Natural Justice.
Facts: Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s vessel, M. V. River Princess, was declared a nuisance under the Goa Tourist Places (Protection and Maintenance) Act, 2001. It was also declared a State Disaster. The Government of Goa, through its Department of Tourism, incurred substantial expenses (Rs. 166,41,10,636/-) to remove the nuisance. The Competent Authority and Director of Tourism passed an order on 15/07/2019 under Section 8 of the Act of 2001 to recover these expenses from the petitioner.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner appealed the order under Section 11 of the Act of 2001, arguing that the expenses were determined without granting them an opportunity to be heard. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging both the original order and the appellate order.
Issue: Whether the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with prior to directing recovery of expenses and costs incurred by the competent authority in removing a nuisance under Section 8 of the Goa Tourist Places (Protection and Maintenance) Act, 2001.
Holding: Yes, the principles of natural justice must be complied with before directing recovery of expenses under Section 8 of the Goa Tourist Places (Protection and Maintenance) Act, 2001. The original order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is liable to be set aside.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 8 of the Act of 2001, which empowers the Competent Authority to recover expenses, results in civil consequences for the person from whom recovery is sought. Even if the statute is silent on the requirement of natural justice, the principles of audi alteram partem must be read into the provision to ensure fairness. The court relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including Mangilal V/s State of Madhya Pradesh, stating that "Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive words in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, there could be nothing wrong in spelling out the need to hear the parties whose rights and interest are likely to be affected by the orders that may be passed". The Court held that the absence of a hearing renders the remedy of appeal ineffective and that the action of recovering expenses results in civil consequences. Therefore, the original order and the appellate order were quashed, and the Competent Authority was directed to undertake the exercise afresh after complying with the principles of natural justice.
