IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35662 of 2010(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JOS I AMBOOKKAN, AGED 59 S/O.ITTOOP, AMBOOKKAN HOUSE, POYYA, MALA, THRISSUR BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR. PIN 680 001 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR.PIN-680 001 3. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, POYYA THRISSUR. PIN- 680 001. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT , SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 35662 of 2010 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he owns 1.35 acres of land in survey No.299/1 of Pallipuram village in Kodungallur Taluk. According to the petitioner, there are two small thodu, passing through the property. It is stated that he was an applicant for a retail petroleum outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and that the said Company issued him Ext.P1 letter of intent. In order to establish the retail outlet, he made Ext.P2 application for conversion of land. 2. On the application made by the petitioner under Act 28 of 2008, Ext.P3 report was submitted by the third respondent. Case of the petitioner is that such a report was made pursuant to the endorsement made by the RDO, Thrissur on 23-03-2010, forwarding Ext.P2 application to the Local Level Monitoring Committee. In Ext.P3 report, after enquiry, the third respondent recommended sanction for conversion of the land. W.P.(C) No.35662/10 : 2 : 3. From Ext.P4, it is seen that, despite Ext.P3, the second respondent again called for a report from the Local Level Monitoring Committee. Against Ext.P4, petitioner submitted Ext.P5 objection, stating that such a further reference was unnecessary. At that stage, complaining of the above, he also filed W.P.(C) No.16837/2010 before this Court. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment relegating the petitioner to seek statutory remedies. 4. Accordingly, petitioner filed Ext.P7 revision against the proceedings of the District Collector which has now been rejected by Ext.P8. In Ext.P8, the stand taken by the first respondent is that on the earlier occasion, the application made by the petitioner was not forwarded to the Local Level Monitoring Committee and, therefore, the action of the second respondent calling for a report as per Ext.P4 is upheld. Petitioner challenges Ext.P8. 5. The stand taken by the petitioner is that Ext.P2 was forwarded to the Local Level Monitoring Committee and, therefore, Ext.P4 is erroneous. It is also his grievance that W.P.(C) No.35662/10 : 3 : Ext.P8 was passed without notice and if notice was issued, he would have been in a position to impress upon the government the illegality of Ext.P4. 6. Irrespective of the contentions raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that Ext.P8 was passed without putting the petitioner on notice, I am inclined to think that Ext.P8 has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merits, I quash Ext.P8 and direct the fourth respondent to reconsider Ext.P7 revision filed by the petitioner with notice to him and orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 7. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before the fourth respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks