IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 11166 of 2011(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JIJO KURIAN (EX-PROPRIETOR, ZEN RUBBERS, MANJAPPRA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT) PADINJAREAL HOUSE, AYYANPUZHA.P.O, KALLUKULANGARA, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM - 683 581 BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ANGAMALI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 572. 3. AMBATTU RUBBER STORES, BRANCH V, XII-57, KATHIPPARA, KOOTHALI.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 505. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. R1 & R2 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.11166/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 17.12.2004 OF THE IST RESPONDENT P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 31.3.2005 IN WP(C) 8371/2005. P3:- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 7.5.2005. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 6.5.2005 ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 24.2.2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 5.3.2011. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10.3.2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 11166 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order imposing penalty on the petitioner under the Kerala General Sales-tax Act, on the ground that the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the order. According to the petitioner, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Subair Haji v. Secretary to Government, 2007(4) KLT 865, whenever a quasi judicial authority changes the authority actually passing the order should afford the party a hearing notwithstanding the fact that the predecessor in office had already heard the petitioner. Here, admittedly the petitioner was heard by the predecessor. Ext.P7 order has been passed by the successor. In Ext.P7 order, there is no mention that the petitioner has been heard. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that before passing Ext.P7 order, the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of being heard. This amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and for that reason Ext.P7 is vitiated. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to re-consider the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/