IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 6796 of 2009(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.MOOPPAN MOTORS PVT.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SMT.SEBA BABU MOOPPAN, NATTAKAM,KOTTAYAM. BY MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.S.SUJIN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),NATIONAL HIGHWAY, CHANGANACHERRY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.6796 of 2009-T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Much labour is unnecessary to decide this case, as of now. 2.Nattakam Panchayat drew up a resolution that a particular bus bay in an alignment of a Highway is likely to cause accidents. That was forwarded to the Government for consideration. This fact was noticed by this Court while rendering Ext.P4 judgment on the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein in relation to acquisition of a piece of land in connection with that highway. According to the petitioner, the land was notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but that notification lapsed and it was thereafter that the petitioner purchased that property and erected structures to WP(C)6796/09 -: 2 :- house its establishment. Later, in the wake of fresh acquisition, the petitioner sought relief. Taking into consideration the resolution of the panchayat, this Court issued Ext.P4 judgment requiring the Government to consider that resolution and the petitioner was directed to place a copy of that judgment. Obviously, the matter that stood referred for consideration by the Government included the plea of the petitioner that its property need not be acquired. Otherwise, I do not find any earthly reason for the petitioner to be before the Government with the decision of the panchayat essentially indicating that the acquisition need not be made. The impugned Ext.P5 has been issued considering the resolution of the panchayat, however without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. While it may be true, as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, that Ext.P4 judgment did not contain any direction to Government to hear the petitioner, the facts clearly demonstrated that the WP(C)6796/09 -: 3 :- petitioner was before the Government with the strength of Ext.P4 judgment only because the petitioner had a grievance. It was not pursuing any public interest. Therefore, any decision that the Government could have taken following the directions contained in Ext.P4 judgment would directly impair the rights of the petitioner and would result in adverse civil consequences. 3.Days have gone when the courts have to repeatedly refer to classic works on Administrative Law by learned authors or refer to any fundamental principle of jurisprudence to show that a person against whom a decision may be passed or who would be affected by any such decision, is entitled to be heard and be told the reasons for the decision. Section 4(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides that every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. When persons affected include or would stand reduced to be singular or a few WP(C)6796/09 -: 4 :- and when crucial rights referable to Article 300A of the Constitution and similar other matters are being considered, there is no reason why the person shall not be given an opportunity of pre- decisional hearing unless the enabling legislations contain a clear exclusion of such rule of hearing either by specific prescription or by inexcusable necessary implication. Bereft of a pre-decisional hearing being given to the petitioner in relation to the passing of Ext.P5, I am satisfied that the said Government Order does not stand. In the result, leaving open all other issues, Ext.P5 is quashed and the Government are directed to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing in relation to its request that the parcel of land in question be excluded from acquisition even by any adjustment by the provision of alternate site as suggested by the petitioner, provided the same is acceptable to the Government on a need-based assimilation of all relevant WP(C)6796/09 -: 5 :- facts and factors. Let a decision in this regard follow within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Until then, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/050609