IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6056 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANIL KUMAR S, T.C.,67/189/5(I) ATHIRA BHAVAN, KOVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MRS.THANKAMMA THOMAS, T.C.67/1897, KOVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC FOR CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 6056 OF 2010 (F) ===================== Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act. Petitioner contends that pursuant to Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions disposing of Appeal No.258/09 filed by him, when proceedings were initiated by the Secretary, his counsel was unwell, as a result of which, his case could not be argued before the 1st respondent. It is on this basis that Ext.P4 is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Standing counsel for the 1st respondent informs that on 11/11/2009, the case was posted and that a counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and sought time. It is also stated that thereupon, the case was adjourned and was posted to 21/12/2009 when one Mr.Shafi appeared and argued for the petitioner. Petitioner disputes this submission and contends that he did not authorise any person to argue the case on his behalf and he reiterates that the order has been passed in violation of the WPC No. 6056/10 :2 : principles of natural justice. 3. Irrespective of the correctness of what both sides say, fact remains that Ext.P4 does not disclose that anybody argued the case on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the complaint of the petitioner that he did not have opportunity to argue his case, I feel, it is only appropriate that the petitioner is given an opportunity to raise his contentions before the respondents. In order to enable the petitioner to do so and the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter, without expressing anything on the merits of the claim, I set aside Ext.P4 and direct the 1st respondent to issue notice to the petitioner and afford him an opportunity of hearing and pass orders in the matter. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp