IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20535 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.M.VEERAKUTTY, S/O.LATE MOOSAN, AGED 61 YEARS, PAKKATTU MUKALEL HOUSE, PANIPRA KARA, KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE, THRIKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM - 682030. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PERIYAR VALLEY IRRIGATION PROJECT, SUB DIVISION NO.1, BHOOTHATHANKETTY, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PERIYAR VALLEY IRRIGATION PROJECT, SECTOR 3/1, BHOOTHATHANKETTU, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20535 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND SKETCH IN O.S.42/2006 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.S3-40/2003 DATED 16.7.11 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 4.2.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 9.2.10 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J .............................................. W.P.(C).20535/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P2, by which he has been asked to demolish and remove the structure mentioned therein. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 was issued without notice to him. 2. A reading of Ext.P2 itself show that it was based on an inspection and without affording the petitioner an opportunity to file objections, this order has been passed. Therefore, the order is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and for that reason itself, order deserves to be interfered with. 3. Be that as it may, in view of the above, I direct that Ext.P2 be treated as a notice and it will be open to the petitioner to file his objections to Ext.P2 before the third respondent, within two weeks from today. If objections are so filed, the third respondent will issue notice of hearing to the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter. W.P.(C).20535/2011 2 4. Subject to filing of objections as directed above, it is directed that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 will be kept in abeyance. 5. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the third respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs