IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26301 of 2007(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.R.SANTHAKUMAR, SREEVALSAM, PAIMKULAM, CHERUTHURUTHY, TRICHUR. BY ADV. MR.SIBY MATHEW MR.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THALAPPALLY TALUK, TRICHUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.TEK CHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 26301/2007-F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A5.4293/07, DATED 04/08/2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.K4-38341/07, DATED 23/07/2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/08/2007, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE K.S.E.B. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE K.S.E.B. TO THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF DUES. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE SUPER SPECIALTY SRI.UTHRADAM THIRUNAL HOSPITAL. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF CONSUMER REGN. CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE K.S.E.B. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT FOR Rs.1,000/- DRAWN ON STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A5.4293/07 DATED 30/08/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.26301 of 2007 - F ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P9 order passed by the 2nd respondent whereby Ext.P1 licence given to him for running the canteen in the mini civil station was cancelled, without stating any reason and also without giving an opportunity of hearing. 2. The petitioner who is ailing from serious cardiac problems had submitted an application in response to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent for running a canteen in the mini civil station and on coming out successful in the bid, he was allotted the right to run the canteen for a period of three years from 15.8.2007 to 14.8.2010, subject to conditions stipulated in Ext.P1. The petitioner submits that he had complied with all the requisite norms and had executed an agreement as borne by Ext.P3. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent, as per Ext.P4 recommended the KSEB to provide electric connection to the canteen and on sanctioning the same, the petitioner remitted W.P.(C).No.26301 of 2007 - F 2 various amounts as stipulated by the Board as borne by Ext.P5; when the petitioner was given the Ext.P7 consumer card by the KSEB. The petitioner also remitted a sum of Rs.1,000/- by a crossed DD payable in the name of the 2nd respondent as evident from Ext.P8. It was after completing the above formalities that the petitioner was shockingly served with Ext.P9 notice issued by the 2nd respondent, asking him to stop running of the canteen until further orders, which in turn has been challenged in the above writ petition. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed from the part of the respondents to sustain the impugned order. It is also not discernible from Ext.P9 as to why the sanction given by the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P1 was cancelled on a fine morning. It is seen from Ext.P9 that no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner before passing the said order, thus in total violation of the principles of natural justice. Obviously, no reason has been stated in Ext.P9 and it can never be regarded as a 'speaking order'. W.P.(C).No.26301 of 2007 - F 3 4. When the matter came up before this Court on 31.8.2007, an interim order staying Ext.P9 was passed for a period of one month, which was extended until further orders on 28.11.2007 and it is still in force. Since this Court has already found that Ext.P9 order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also without showing any reason whatsoever, it has necessarily to go and hence is set aside. It is further made clear that, if the 2nd respondent wants to put an end to the arrangement with the petitioner with regard to running of the canteen, sufficient notice shall be given to him well in advance, providing an opportunity of being heard, unless the tenure stipulated in Ext.P1 contract expires otherwise. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. bkn/-