IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 30172 of 2008(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- C.SHRIKRISHNA BHAT, 48 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, PRASADAM DISTRIBUTOR, MADHUR SREE MADANANTHESHWARI VINAYAKA TEMPLE, P.O.MADHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, MR.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH MR.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HR & CE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE MADANATHESHWARI VINAYAKA TEMPLE, P.O.MADHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. M.GOPALAN. AGRICULTURAL WORKER, MADHUR TEMPLE, P.O.MADHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH R3 BY ADV. MR.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN, MR.S.SUJIN. R4 BY ADV. MR.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY, SMT.D.HEERA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.30172/2008 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE STATE VANITHA COMMISSION ON 11/06/2008 TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILD BY THE PETITIONER'S WIFE TO THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD DTD. 10/04/08. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 23/07/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R3 DTD. 25/07/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 21/07/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2/09/2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R3 DTD. 27/09/2008. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 6/10/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A): COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR CIOPY OF THE COMPLAINT. EXT.R3(B): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE WRIT PETITIONER RECORDED BY THIS RESPONDENT ON 4/08/2008. EXT.R3(C): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 23/08/08 RECEIVED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(D): COPY OF THE SCHEME OF THE MADHUR SREE MADANANTHESHWARA VINAYAKA TEMPLE. /TRUE COPY/ P..A.TO JUDGE Kss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 30172 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th February,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is working as a Prasadam Distributor in the Madhur Madanantheshwari Vinayaka Temple of which the 3rd respondent is the Executive Officer. Petitioner is in occupation of the Devaswom Quarters and is residing with his family. Based on some complaint, it appears that the Executive Officer has passed Exhibit-P6 by which he was directed to vacate the quarters within one month. Petitioner submitted Exhibit-P7 objection to the same. But the Executive Officer by Exhibit-P8 directed the petitioner to comply with Exhibit-P6. 2. I heard learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent also. Third respondent has filed a counter affidavit detailing the steps taken to enquire into the complaints. 3. Mainly it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing Exhibit-P6 no show cause notice was issued and no opportunity to file explanation was given to him. A reading of Exhibit-P6 W.P ( C) No. 30172 of 2008 2 shows that even though there was an enquiry in which the deposition of petitioner was also recorded, subsequently no notice was issued proposing the vacation of quarters by him and no opportunity was given to file explanation it to the said proposal to vacate the quarters. Even though the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that he was given a show cause notice as per Exhibit-P8, a reading of Exhibit-P8 shows that it is only a notice asking him to comply with Exhibit-P6. Therefore, it is violating the principles of natural justice that Exhibit-P6 was passed to vacate the quarters. 4. Hence, Exhibit-P6 will stand set aside. Third respondent will issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and pass fresh orders thereon, after hearing the petitioner, and after considering the objection already filed as Exhibit-P7 or any additional representation he may wish to file. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 30172 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No. 30172 of 2008 4