IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.A.No. 658 of 2008 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6665/2008 Dated 03/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- THE MALABAR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, (INCORPORATED AS PER CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION N0.5 OF 1930-1931 UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1913), CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ACTING SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT WOMEN & CHILD HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI M.P. SREEKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------------------- W. A. NO. 658 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th March, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L. DATTU, C.J: Shri M.P. Sreekrishnan, learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2. 2. Though the matter is posted for admission, by consent of both the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing. None of the counsel appearing for the parties to the lis intends to file any counter affidavit or documents in support of their case. 3. Ext. P4, an order passed by the Superintendent, Government Women & Children Hospital, Kozhikode dated 23.2.2008 and Ext.P5, the order passed by the State Government dated 12.2.2008, were the subject matter of the Writ Petition. By the impugned orders, the State Government has taken over the Comfort Station said to be in the premises of the Government Women & Children Hospital, Kozhikode from the appellant/petitioner. 4. The primary grievance of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the respondents without issuing a show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing, could not have passed the impugned orders. 5. The learned Single Judge has accepted the version of the petitioner and accordingly has allowed the Writ Petition and while doing so, has not quashed Exts.P4 and P5 orders, but has directed the first respondent to issue appropriate show cause notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has also directed that the parties shall maintain status quo as on the date of passing of the order. WA. 658/08 2 6. While questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, Shri Mohammed Nias C.P., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Single Judge while disposing of the matter ought to have quashed Exts.P4 and P5 orders passed by the respondents and it is only thereafter should have directed the respondents to issue appropriate show cause notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Learned counsel also takes exception to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in so far as directing the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of passing of the order. 7. The State Government has not filed any appeal against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. It is only the petitioner who is before us in this Writ Appeal. 8. We have perused the orders passed by the learned Single Judge who has taken exception to the orders Exts.P4 and P5, passed by the respondents. The learned Judge has found that the impugned orders are passed were without issuing appropriate show cause notice to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity of hearing and therefore has come to the conclusion that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge ought to have quashed those two orders and thereafter should have issued directions to the respondents to issue appropriate show cause notice to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, to take a decision in the matter. Since that has not been done in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the Writ Appeal requires to be allowed in part and Exts.P4 and P5 orders passed by the respondents should be set aside and with a further direction to the first respondent to issue appropriate show cause notice and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. WA. 658/08 3 9. Accordingly, we pass the following: Order (i) The Writ Appeal is allowed in part and the impugned orders Exts.P4 and P5 are quashed. (ii) The first respondent is directed to issue appropriate show cause notice to the petitioner within ten day's time from today. The petitioner is granted one week's time from the date of receipt of the show cause notice, to file his objection, if any, to the show cause notice. (iii) If the petitioner files his objection within the time granted, the first respondent shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of the representation/objection. (iv) Since the first respondent has already taken possession of the Comfort Station situated in the premises of the Government Women & Child Hospital, Kozhikode, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today till a decision is taken by the first respondent as ordered by us. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, kbk/DK. JUDGE WA. 658/08 4