Authorities must decide the petitioner’s application by a reasoned order before taking coercive action.

The petitioner, a pujari at Maa Mahamaya Mandir, Ratanpur, claimed long-standing occupation of the government land in question.

The Municipal Council, Ratanpur issued a notice dated 06.10.2023 proposing his eviction, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking declarations regarding the Council’s authority over the land, demolition of alleged constructions, restoration of the land, and protection against interference with his possession.

The Municipal Council submitted that its reply was still awaited.

The Court noted that no coercive action had been taken pursuant to the notice and that no interim order had been passed during the pendency of the petition.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for adjudication of his grievances concerning the proposed eviction from the subject land.

Whether the Municipal Council could be directed to consider the petitioner’s claims and refrain from taking coercive action pursuant to the notice dated 06.10.2023 pending such consideration.

The Court applied the principle that an aggrieved person should first place the relevant factual and legal claims before the competent statutory or administrative authority, which must consider them in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court further exercised its discretionary writ jurisdiction to issue limited protective directions where no coercive action had yet been taken and where the competent authority had not finally adjudicated the petitioner’s claims.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

Since the petitioner’s grievance arose from a proposed eviction notice and the Municipal Council had not yet taken coercive action or finally determined the petitioner’s claims, the Court considered it appropriate not to adjudicate the substantive rights over the land at that stage.

Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to submit an appropriate application before the Municipal Council seeking the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.

The competent authority was directed to examine the application in accordance with law and issue a reasoned and speaking order, thereby ensuring administrative consideration of the petitioner’s objections before any coercive action.

As an interim safeguard, the authorities were restrained from taking coercive steps for 45 days or until the application was decided, whichever was earlier.

It disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner 10 days to file an appropriate application before the Municipal Council.

The competent authority was directed to decide the application preferably within 45 days of receipt by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents were restrained from taking coercive action pursuant to the notice dated 06.10.2023 for 45 days from the date of the order or until disposal of the application, whichever was earlier.