IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17793 of 2011(Y) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- P.P.SHAMEEM PUNATHIL, S/O. MUHAMMED SALI, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. PUNATHIL GREEN EARTH, CW 38/139, SHAMINAS BUILDING, ONDEN ROAD, KANNUR-670001. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR - 670 002. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAPPINISSERRY, PAPPINISSERRY VILLAGE OFFICE, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 008. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 17793 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 381/2011 DT. 10.2.2011 OR SRO, KANNUR. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 27.5.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 1.6.2011 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. L3/2011/23542 DT. 10.6.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.17793 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 order. 2. The petitioner claims to be an owner of the property covered by Ext.P1 title deed. Ext.P2 is a notice issued by the 1st respondent calling upon the petitioner to appear before him on 1.6.2011, to submit explanation on the allegation of reclamation of wet land after cutting and removal of mangroves in violation of provisions contained in the Kerala Conversation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. 3. On receipt of Ext.P2 notice the petitioner engaged a counsel, who submitted Ext.P3 request to the 1st respondent, informing that since the petitioner is out of station he was unable to appear on 1.6.2011. On that basis the 1st respondent was requested to adjourn the proceedings to some other date. However, without granting W.P(C) No.17793 of 2011 2 the request and without even stating any reason therefor, 1st respondent passed Ext.P4 proceedings on 10.6.2011 finding that the petitioner committed violation of the provisions of Act 28/2008 and Environmental Protections Act 1986. On that basis, exercising powers under Section 13 of Act 28/2008 the petitioner was ordered to restore the land into its original position. It is this order, that is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Learned Government Pleader took a preliminary objection that having regard to the alternate remedy provided under Act 28/2008 the writ petition is not maintainable. Although it is true that the statute provides an alternative remedy to the petitioner, Ext.P4 order is challenged on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. As already seen, on receipt of Ext.P2 notice the counsel for the petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent and sought an adjournment on the ground that the petitioner is out of station. It was without granting the request made on his behalf and without stating any reason therefor, that Ext.P4 order was passed on 10.6.2011. In my view, the order was passed denying a reasonable W.P(C) No.17793 of 2011 3 opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and therefore while passing Ext.P4 order, the 1st respondent has violated the principles of natural justice. 5. In so far as the objection of availability of alternate remedy is concerned, that itself is not a bar to entertain the writ petition. This rule is subject to exceptions of which one is cases where principles of natural justice has been violated. The decision in the case of Whirlpool Corporation V. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others (1998(8) SCC 1) is directly on the point. In this case since I have found that principles of natural justice have been violated, I do not think that the availability of alternative remedy can be a reason to reject the writ petition. 6. For the aforesaid reason Ext.P4 is set aside in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The 1st respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and pass fresh orders. ANTONY DOMINIC ab JUDGE