Mandatory exemption application formalities must be followed, but rejection remains vulnerable if natural justice is denied.

An exemption-scheme application had to be filed in the prescribed Form S.T. 70 with the required annexures, including the change of land use certificate, because the form and supporting documents formed mandatory statutory conditions rather than directory requirements. Non-compliance could validly justify rejection. At the same time, refusal of the application had to comply with natural justice: where the notice did not clearly communicate the hearing date and the applicant was not given a meaningful opportunity to meet the defects, the rejection and appellate affirmation were procedurally infirm and liable to be set aside for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the requirement of filing the application in Form S.T. 70 with the prescribed annexures, including the change of land use certificate, was mandatory for seeking an eligibility certificate under the exemption scheme; (ii) Whether rejection of the application and dismissal of the appeal were vitiated by denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the requirement of filing the application in Form S.T. 70 with the prescribed annexures, including the change of land use certificate, was mandatory for seeking an eligibility certificate under the exemption scheme?

Analysis: The exemption scheme under the parent Act and the delegated rules treated the prescribed form and its annexures as part of the statutory framework. The application had to be made in the prescribed form, and incomplete particulars or missing documents could render the application ineffective. In view of the object of the scheme and the insistence on the change of land use certificate to prevent unregulated development, the prescribed requirements were not directory but mandatory.

Conclusion: The requirement was mandatory and non-compliance could validly justify rejection.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the application and dismissal of the appeal were vitiated by denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing?

Analysis: The notice placed before the applicant did not indicate the date of hearing before the Screening Committee, leaving the applicant uncertain about appearance and opportunity to cure the defects. The record also showed a distorted version of the notice being produced, and the Committee proceeded to reject the application without a proper hearing on the disputed requirement. The appellate Committee merely affirmed that decision without curing the procedural defect.

Conclusion: The rejection and appellate order were vitiated by violation of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The eligibility-certificate rejection could not stand and the matter required fresh consideration by the Screening Committee after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory exemption application must be filed in a prescribed form with specified annexures, the prescribed requirements are enforceable as mandatory conditions; however, refusal of such benefit must still conform to natural justice, and a decision taken without a meaningful opportunity of hearing is liable to be quashed.

---