IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.692 of 2023 Decided on: 18.06.2025 Gomti Prasad ...Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Ms. Bhavana Datta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral) By way of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 12.10.2023, passed learned District Judge, Shimla in case No.24-S/14 of 2023, whereby the order dated 07.01.2023, passed by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla in case No.508/AP/2016 was affirmed. 2. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned orders are vitiated on account of non-compliance of principles of natural justice. As per the petitioner, he has not been afforded proper opportunity of being heard before final adjudication of the matter. 3. The record of the Court of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, reveals that on 05.01.2019, the petitioner 2 was represented through counsel. The matter was adjourned to 06.04.2019 and on that date also the petitioner was duly represented. The Commissioner had heard the arguments and had ordered the matter to be listed on 25.05.2019 for orders. On 25.05.2019, no proceedings were held, as the Commissioner was stated to be occupied in official work. The case was adjourned for 09.08.2019 under the signatures of hearing clerk, Municipal Corporation, Shimla. On 09.08.2019, again no proceedings were held on the ground that the Commissioner was occupied in other official work. The matter was again adjourned to 22.11.2019. On that date, the Commissioner ordered to proceed against the petitioner ex-parte by holding that the petitioner had been personally served through summon. It was further recorded that the arguments were again heard and the case was listed for orders on 10.01.2020. 4. It is further revealed from the record that thereafter the matter was taken up on various dates, but the order was not pronounced till 07.01.2023, when the order of demolition was passed against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner raised the same ground in appeal before learned District Judge, but his contention has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had been afforded 3 sufficient opportunities of being heard by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla. 6. Having perused the record, the findings recorded by learned District Judge cannot be sustained. As noticed above, the case was not taken up by the Commissioner on the adjourned dates of 25.05.2019 and 09.08.2019 and for that, obviously, the petitioner cannot be faulted. There is nothing on record to show that on 25.05.2019 and 09.08.2019, the petitioner was present and the case was adjourned by informing him about the next dates. 7. The respondent has placed reliance on a notice dated 18.11.2019 issued in the name of the petitioner directing him to appear on 22.11.2019. The said notice was allegedly returned with the report that the notice was served upon the petitioner. The original notice dated 18.11.2019 reveals that it bears the signatures under the name of Gomti Prasad. During the hearing of this petition, the petitioner Mr. Gomti Prasad remained present in this court on 24.03.2025. He had categorically refused the signatures on the notice dated 18.11.2019 to be his. 8. The notice dated 18.11.2019 also does not reveal proper endorsement of the serving officer. In such circumstances, the stance taken by the petitioner cannot be outrightly rejected. That being so, no prejudice shall be caused in case the petitioner 4 is afforded another opportunity of being heard by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla before passing the final order. 9. In result, the impugned order dated 12.10.2023, passed learned District Judge, Shimla in case No.24-S/14, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, to decide it afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The parties are directed to appear before Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla on 5th July, 2025. The record be sent back forthwith. 11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 18th June, 2025 (vt)