IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 21974 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ V.A.SAMUEL, AGED 57, S/O.ABRAHAM VAZHAKALAYIL HOUSE, MAMBRA PO,CHERIYANAD VIA ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY REP BY ITS SECRETARY MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, CHENGANNUR PO,CHENGANNUR. 2. THE CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY COMMITTEE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, CHENGANNUR PO, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (RA) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARAIT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN,SC,CHENGANNUR MUNICI FOR R1&2 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21974 OF 2009 (N) ===================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a contractor and Ext.P1 is his registration card with the Public Works Department. In this writ petition, he is seeking to quash Exts.P4, P5 and P8. By these orders, his licence has been cancelled and he has been blacklisted by the 1st respondent on the allegation that the petitioner has unauthorizedly and illegally reconstructed the compound wall of the Government Boys High School, Chengannur trespassing into the adjacent government land, in order to help a person residing in the neighbourhood to reduce a portion of the Government property into his possession. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that according to the petitioner, on being instructed by the Secretary of the Municipality, in view of the urgency of the situation, he completed the work of reconstruction of school compound wall and is entitled to be paid for the same. However, on the allegation that it was without any instructions or agreement or authority that the petitioner reconstructed the compound wall and that the same WPC 21974/09 :2 : was to help a person in the neighbourhood to reduce into his possession a portion of the Government land, enquiry was held at Government level, which appears to have confirmed the allegations. Thereupon, by Ext.P4, the 3rd respondent directed the Secretary of the 1st respondent to initiate action for cancelling the licence of the petitioner and to blacklist him. 3. From the records produced, it would appear that on receipt of Ext.P4, the Municipal Council by its resolution No.5 dated 29/4/2009 resolved to cancel the licence of the petitioner and to blacklist him. In pursuance to the said resolution of the council, the Secretary of the 1st respondent issued Ext.P5 dated 18/5/2009 conveying the decision of the Municipal Council to the petitioner and requiring him to show cause against the said decision within three days. Petitioner filed his reply, but however, Ext.P8 order was finally passed confirming the cancellation of his licence and blacklisting him. Petitioner submits that he did the work under authority and there is no basis for the allegation of tresspass, that he is entitled to be paid for the work he did, that his licence is not liable to be cancelled and that he is not liable to be blacklisted. WPC 21974/09 :3 : 4. Over and above all this, it is also contended that Ext.P4 issued by the 3rd respondent was taken as a binding direction by respondents 1 and 2 and that it was entirely acting upon Ext.P4 that he was blacklisted by the council vide its resolution dated 29/4/2009. It is his further contention that a decision of blacklisting can only be passed in appropriate cases and that too only in compliance with the principles of natural justice by putting the person affected on notice and that such requirements have not been complied with in his case. 5. The Municipality has filed a counter affidavit. Although its action is sought to be justified on the merits of the controversy, I think before entering into the examination of the contentions on merits, it is necessary to find out whether in passing the impugned orders of blacklisting and cancelling the licence, natural justice has been complied with. 6. First, I shall deal with the contention of the petitioner regarding Ext.P4, in as much as according to the petitioner, the same has been taken as a binding direction issued by the Government requiring the Municipality to cancel his licence and blacklist him. Ext.P4 only says that in view of the findings in the WPC 21974/09 :4 : enquiry conducted by the Government, action in accordance with law should be taken for the cancellation of the licence of the petitioner and for blacklisting him. By this order, Government did not require the Municipality to dispense with the principles of natural justice or any other procedural formalities which are required to be complied with. If so, Ext.P4 can only be viewed as a communication alerting the Municipality to take action in accordance with law and cannot be taken as a direction to the Municipality to cancel the licence or blacklist the petitioner. 7. Coming to Ext.P5 and P8, I am inclined to think that in cancelling the licence and blacklisting the petitioner, natural justice has been violated. This is for the reason that Ext.P5 itself discloses that before issuing the said communication on 18/5/2009, the Municipal Council had passed Resolution No.5 dated 29/4/2009 resolving to cancel the licence of the petitioner and to blacklist him. It was in pursuance to the said resolution of the council that a subordinate authority, namely, the Secretary of the Municipality, issued Ext.P5 conveying the decision of the Council and calling upon the petitioner to file his objections, if any, within 3 days. A superior authority having already decided to WPC 21974/09 :5 : blacklist the petitioner, Ext.P5 to the extent the petitioner is called upon to file his objections to the decision of the superior authority before an inferior authority was only an empty formality in as much as inferior authority cannot take any stand inconsistent with the decision taken by the superior authority. That apart, Ext.P5 itself show that what was offered was only a post decisional hearing. 8. Respondents have no case that before the Council took the decision as reflected in Ext.P5, the petitioner was put on notice. If that be so, the decision taken by the Council on 29/4/2009 is itself violative of the principles of natural justice. That apart, pursuant to Ext.P5, though the petitioner did file his objections and Ext.P8 final order has been passed by the Secretary, still in the facts of this case, I am fairly clear in my mind that the Secretary was acting only in obedience with the decision taken by the Municipal Council and that the Secretary did not have an opportunity to exercise his discretion and take an independent decision in the matter. For these reasons, I am inclined to think that the decision of the Municipal Council dated 29/4/2009 and Exts.P5 and P8 are violative of the principles of WPC 21974/09 :6 : natural justice and are liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, I set aside the aforesaid proceedings of the Municipal Council and the Secretary. It is made clear that in compliance with Ext.P4 issued by the 3rd respondent, it will be open to the Secretary of the 1st respondent to issue notice to the petitioner conveying the proposal to cancel his licence and blacklisting him, allow him to file his objections, hear him and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp