IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3382 of 2009(C) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SMT.LALITHA.P, VAYALINKARA VEEDU, AAVATTUTHARA, VIZHINJAM. BY MR.S.CHANDRASENAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DIRECTOR OF PORT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PORTS TRIVANDRUM. 2. PORT OFFICER, PORT OFFICE NEENDAKARA ASRAMAM ROAD, QUILON-2. 3. PURSER, VIZHINJAM PORT, TRIVANDRUM. BY MR. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3382 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P2. 2. By this order, Ext.P1 licence issued to the petitioner for “placing shade umbrellas and chairs for tourists” at Kovalam Beach has been cancelled. Ext.P1 shows that the licence is valid till 15/05/2009. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P2 order was issued without furnishing a copy of the complaint referred to therein, and without even issuing a notice or giving her an opportunity to furnish her explanation on the allegations levelled against her. 3. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions in the matter. According to him, two others in the family of the petitioner are also licencees and that it was not allowed under the Rules. According to him, it was therefore, that the licence was cancelled. He also refers to the complaint received on this allegation. 4. It may be true that the respondents may have valid WP(C) No.3382/2009 -2- reasons for cancelling the licence. But, however, before cancellation of the licence, and that too on the basis of a complaint, the licencee is entitled to be put on notice on the allegations on the basis of which cancellation is proposed. 5. Admittedly, in this case, such a notice has not been given, and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to show cause against such allegation. In such circumstances, the cancellation of Ext.P1 as per Ext.P2 is against the principles of natural justice. 6. Therefore, Ext.P2 deserves to be set aside and I do so. It is directed that this judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents in initiating fresh action against the petitioner complying with the principles of natural justice. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg