IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23316 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.K.VENKITRAM NAIDU, PROPRIETOR,M/S.GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,PALLURUTHY,KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SRI.BOBY MATHEW SRI.E.T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM. 2. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANTHI NAGAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ESTATE OFFICER, KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,MARKETING DIVISION, P.B.NO.4,GANDHI NAGAR,KOCHI-20. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.23316 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P16 order passed by the first respondent as an appellate authority under the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968. The appeal was preferred against Ext.P7 order passed by the Estate Officer of the second respondent. Several contentions have been taken challenging Exts.P7 and P16. But, for the present, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration since the petitioner was not heard by the first respondent before Ext.P16 order was passed. 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in this regard. 3. It seems that notice of hearing on the appeal was sent to the party. But, it was returned stating that it could not be served. I note that as per Ext.P15 dated 17.12.2007, the petitioner had already intimated the District Collector that notice WPC No.23316/2009 2 of posting of the case may be sent either to him personally or to Advocate Mr.Gopalakrishnan Nair. The appeal is seen to have been disposed of after two years of Ext.P15. A notice should have been sent to the Advocate mentioned in Ext.P15. 4. In the result, Ext.P16 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext.P8 appeal after notice to the petitioner as also to the second respondent. It is made clear that in so far as the second respondent is concerned, it is open to it to intimate the appellate authority that its written objection may be treated as adequate. The petitioner shall appear before the District Collector on 4.10.2009 along with a copy of this judgment. But, a copy of the judgment along with the copy of the writ petition may be forwarded to the first respondent well in advance under intimation to the second respondent also. The District Collector shall pass orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Status quo as on date shall be maintained till fresh orders are passed by the District Collector. The writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, JUDGE csl