IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 38251 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.R. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. LATE T.V. RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 67 YEARS, 22/133, THIRUNELLAI, PALAKKAD - 678 020. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY. 3. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY. 4. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BARTON HILL BUNGLAW, VANCHIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 037. 5. T.E. KASTHURI RANGANATHAN, 22/132, THIRUNELLAI, PALAKKAD - 678 020. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1-2 APPEARING WITH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R1-2 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R1-2 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R1-2 SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN FOR R5 SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN FOR R5 SRI. T.C. SURESH MENON. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 38251/2008. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF COMPLAINT DT. 11-10-2008. EXT.P2 NOTICE ISSUED BY R4. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 10-11-2008. EXT.P4 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 12-11-2008. EXT.P5 OBJECTION DT.20-11-2008. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 10-12-2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.R5(1) FORM A D. 11.10.2008. EXT.R5(2) STATEMENT DT. 14-1-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 38251 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext. P6 order passed by the 3rd respondent under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act. The primary contention raised by the petitioner is that although to Ext. P4 notice under Section 406(1), the petitioner had filed Ext. P5 objections, Ext. P6 has been passed without considering any of the objections raised by the petitioner, that too, in a printed form. In the above circumstances, I directed counsel for the Municipality to obtain instructions as to whether the Municipality is prepared to pass a fresh order, after considering Ext. P5 objections and giving reasons. 2. Today, counsel for the Municipality submits that the Municipality is prepared to pass a fresh order, after hearing the petitioner and considering the objections raised by the petitioner. Counsel for the 5th respondent points out that in the writ petition itself, the petitioner has, in paragraph 2, admitted violation. Whatever that be, I am of opinion that orders under Section 406(3) should contain reasons as to why the objections filed by a party cannot be accepted. As such, Ext. P6 is clearly an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ext. P6 is quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders, giving reasons for the conclusions to be reached by the 3rd respondent. Fresh orders shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/