IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 752 of 2010(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. MR.SUNNY MATHEW, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MR.M.P.MATHEW, MULACKAL HOUSE, MATTOM ROAD, CHANGANASSERY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. MR.M.P.MATHEW, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.LATE MR.PHILIP, MULAKKAL HOUSE, MATTOM ROAD, CHANGANASSERY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.JOY GEORGE, SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.752 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 5rd day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is the Manager of Sreya Gas Agencies, Changanassery and 2nd petitioner is the owner of the building, who is the father of the 1st petitioner. They are aggrieved by Exhibit P9 order passed by the District Collector whereby the District Collector has directed the Sub Inspector of Police to initiate prosecution proceedings under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The matter was heard on different occasions and the 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the previous hearing day that there was another connected proceedings resulting in Exhibit P10 produced herein, wherein the order was passed by the then District Collector on 24.08.2009 and actually both W.P.(C) No.752/2010 2 matters were heard together by the same officer. But, the order Exhibit P9 against the petitioners was passed by the successor in office. It is pointed out that the present order is passed without hearing the petitioners and therefore, there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. Today the learned Government Pleader on getting further instructions submitted that Exhibit P9 order is one passed by the District Collector in the light of the hearing conducted by the predecessor in office but without conducting a rehearing in the matter. Therefore, I am of the view that the same is a vitiating factor as far as the legality of Exhibit P9 order is concerned. There is violation of the principles of natural justice as the District Collector presently in office has not heard the petitioners. Hence Exhibit P9 is quashed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to conduct a fresh hearing with notice to the petitioners and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to Exhibit P9 order, the Police has W.P.(C) No.752/2010 3 registered a crime as Crime No.935/2009. Since Exhibit P9 is quashed, the fate of the said case will depend upon the order to be passed by the District Collector afresh. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp