IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16325 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JOSE TOM ALIAS JOSE THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS,AGE 48 YEARS, CHEERAPARAMBIL KOTTANADAN THAMARACHAL,KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. VAVACHAN @ VARGHESE ANTHONY ILLATHUKUDI HOUSE, BLAVANA KARA, POOYAMKUTTY, (VIA)KUTTAMPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE OFFICE KUTTAMPUZHA-686691 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16325/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1439/2009/I OF S.R.O, KOTHAMANGALAM. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE REVENEU DIVISION OFFICER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF THE VILLGE OFFICER, KUTTAMPURA DATED 18.2.2010. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.1398/10/A2 DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 16325 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent, there is no representation. 2. The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order passed by the 2nd respondent on a complaint made by the 1st respondent. Ext.P4 order states that despite notice, the petitioner who was the respondent in the proceedings was not present. However the case of the petitioner is that he was not served with notice of the proceedings. 3. The case was adjourned for the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions and the instructions obtained shows that the address of the petitioner furnished by the 1st respondent was incorrect. Evidently, therefore notice was not served on the petitioner for him to be present before the 2nd respondent when the proceedings leading to Ext.P4 was considered. 4. In view of the above, Ext.P4 will stand set aside. It is directed that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, fresh notice will be issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner in the WPC No. 16325/11 :2 : address shown in the cause title to this judgment and to the 1st respondent, the complainant. They will be heard and fresh orders will be passed in the matter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp