The Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order passed without a proper hearing. It set aside the order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing by the District Collector within two months.
Set aside Ext.P13 order and remit the matter to the District Collector for a fresh hearing within two months after hearing the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 8TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.7294 OF 2018(J)
PETITIONER:
JULIET. E.J
AGED 67 YEARS, W/O ANTONY M.L, MANTHRA HOUSE,PERUMPILLY NJARKKAL, ERNAKULAM DT, PIN.682505
BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR SRI.K.B.DAYAL SRI.SIBI KARUN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 682030
2 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER COLLECTORATE COMPLEX, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 682030
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
G P- SMT VINEETHA .B
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.7294 OF 2018(J)
2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:-
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibits P3 and P13 and quash the same
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to return the goods seized and taken away from the petitioner's shop.
iii) Issue a mandatory direction directing the respondents to give Rs.1,00,000/- towards the compensation to the petitioner for unnecessary harassment and defame caused by the respondents to her by the illegal action.'
learned Government Pleader.
been put on notice pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment and had been heard before the impugned order was passed. It is stated that
the 1st respondent had earlier heard the petitioner on
WP(C).No.7294 OF 2018(J)
3
16.08.2017. However, pursuant to Ext.P10, the hearing had been conducted by the Additional District Magistrate, but the order was passed by the District Collector.
In view of the fact that the impugned order is challenged on the ground that the person, who issued the order, had not heard the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to set aside Ext.P13 and to remand the matter for fresh hearing by the specified Appellate Authority himself. The District Collector shall put the petitioner on notice and hear him and pass appropriate orders after considering his contentions also. To facilitate a proper consideration of the contentions, Ext.P13 shall stand set aside. The District Collector shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE
Bng/29.01.2020
WP(C).No.7294 OF 2018(J)
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.9572/2017 DATED 18.4.2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20.4.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.5.2017 BY NO.CS-5-6180/2012 |
| EXHIBIT P4 | PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT CHALLENGING THE FINAL ORDER EXHIBIT P3 |
| EXHIBIT P5 | PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.25304/2017 DATED 31.7.2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 22.8.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.8.2017 BY NO.CS-5-6180/2012 |
| EXHIBIT P8 | PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER IN REVIEW PETITION PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.10.2017 BY NO.CS-5- 6180/2012 |
| EXHIBIT P9 | PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED DATED 21.2.2017 BY THE WHOLE SALE DEALER FOR THE QUANTITY OF RICE SOLD BY THEM IN BLACK MARKET (18 QUINTALS) |
| EXHIBIT 10 | PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.35589/2017 DATED 29.11.2017 |
| EXHIBIT P11 | PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.CS-5- 6180/2012/2012 DATED 3.1.2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. |
WP(C).No.7294 OF 2018(J)
5
| EXHIBIT P12 | PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 18.1.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P13 | PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CS.5- 6180/2012/2012 DATED 23.2.2018 |
| EXHIBIT P14 | PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT BY FILE NO.14897/2017 DATED 1.6.2017 |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate authority could pass an order without hearing the petitioner.
Whether the impugned order should be remanded for a fresh hearing by the original authority.
What appropriate writ relief should be issued against the impugned order.
JULIET. E.J
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM
THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER COLLECTORATE COMPLEX, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM
ANU SIVARAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
