An enforcement order passed before the statutory hearing violates natural justice and is unsustainable.

The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged an order dated 11 September 2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Authorised Officer, ODA Court (NZ), BMC, in UAP Case No. 863 of 2026 (NZ), concerning alleged unauthorised commercial use of residential premises and unauthorised development.

The petitioner had earlier been served with a show-cause notice dated 5 September 2026 under Section 91(1) of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982, requiring it to submit an explanation and appear for personal hearing on 25 September 2026.

Before the scheduled hearing and expiry of the opportunity to respond, the authority passed the impugned order directing closure and removal of the commercial activities and unauthorised development, along with disconnection of electricity and water supply and stoppage of sewerage discharge, with police assistance; the petitioner also faced the possibility of sealing of the premises.

The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order and the show-cause notices, while the State defended the authority’s power to pass the order.

1. Whether the impugned order directing coercive action against the petitioner, passed before the date fixed for submission of explanation and personal hearing, violated the principles of natural justice and the proviso to Section 91(1) of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982.

2. Whether the existence of an appellate remedy under Section 91(2) barred the petitioner from invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court against an order allegedly passed without jurisdiction and in breach of natural justice.

3. Whether the impugned order was liable to be quashed while leaving the show-cause proceedings open for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

The Court applied Section 91(1) of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982, which permits action against unauthorised activities and provides a period of not less than five and not more than fifteen days for compliance; its proviso requires that the owner or person concerned be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause before an order is made.

The Court further referred to Section 91(2), which provides an appellate remedy, but held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is illegal, unauthorised, without jurisdiction, or violates the principles of natural justice.

The governing principle was that a reasonable opportunity must allow the affected person sufficient time to submit an explanation and place their case before the competent authority, and an order passed without such opportunity is legally unsustainable.

The show-cause notice required the petitioner to respond within fifteen days and fixed 25 September 2026 for personal appearance and production of documents.

However, the authority passed the impugned coercive order on 11 September 2026, before the scheduled hearing and before the petitioner had been afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond.

This amounted to a clear breach of the statutory requirement of reasonable opportunity under the proviso to Section 91(1) and violated natural justice.

Since the order was passed in undue haste and before completion of the show-cause process, the Court held it unsustainable notwithstanding the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 91(2).

The proper course was to quash the premature order and remit the matter to the authority for fresh proceedings from the stage of show cause, while preserving the validity of the notices.

The matter was remitted to the competent authority to proceed afresh in accordance with the Act and Rules after granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to submit its explanation and present its case.

The show-cause notices were expressly not quashed; the authority was permitted to proceed from the stage of show cause by fixing a fresh date in accordance with law.

The pending interlocutory application was also disposed of.