IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17484 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ASHOK KUMAR KANATT,AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.V.GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR,KRISHNARAMAM HOUSE, ANANDAPURAM PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. P.SANJAY MS. A.PARVATHI MENON MR. BIJU MEENATTOOR MS. M.A.SHEEBA MR. GLEN ANTONY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY, IT DEPARTMENT(DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE IT MISSION) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001. 2. THE CHIEF CO-0RDINATOR(DISTRICT COLLECTOR) AKSHAYA PROJECT, COLLECTORATE,CIVIL LINES,THRISSUR,PIN 680 004. 3. THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT CO-ORDINATOR, AKSHAYA PROJECT,DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE, VANCHIKULAM ROAD,THRISSUR,PIN 680 004. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. M. J. RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) 17484 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN TO PETITIONER EXT. P1(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI NEWS PAPER REPORT DATED 28.10.2009 EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF UNDERTAKING DATED NIL EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION IN WRITING REGARDING COLLECTION. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI NEWS PAPER DATED SEPTEMBER 12TH EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2011 EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER'S DATED 18.02.2011 EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15.03.2011 EXT. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.04.2011 EXT. P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2011 EXT. P10 : TRUE COPY OF AN E-MAIL RECEIVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT. P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY PETITIONER DATED 16.07.2009 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 17484 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 29th June , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext. P9 order passed by the second respondent, whereby the 'Akshaya Service Centre' run by the petitioner has been ordered to be closed down, which according to the petitioner, is without giving an opportunity of hearing and hence is in contravention of the Principles of natural justice. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the reasons stated in Ext. P9 are not at all correct or sustainable and that the petitioner was running the unit without giving rise to any complaint from any corner, but for the frivolous complaint made by some persons, who are nurturing personal animosity to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner could not substantiate the position before the concerned respondent because of the denial of opportunity of hearing. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Going by the contents of Ext. P9, which refers to various proceedings under the head 'Reference', such as item Nos. 1 to 10, no W.P. (C) No. 17484 of 2011 : 2 : proceeding is mentioned as to the issuance of notice to the petitioner regarding finalization of the proceedings. The sixth paragraph in the second page of Ext. P9 (though not separately numbered), making a reference to item No. 8 of the said proceedings, reveals that, in the hearing held on the relevant date, the person by name 'Saritha' was stated as 'not present', which in other words suggests that, there is no case for the second respondent that the petitioner was not present. But, if the petitioner was present on that day, what was the case projected by him, is not seen discussed anywhere in Ext. P9. The petitioner has in fact sought to explain the position by filing Ext. P8 representation before the second respondent in response to the communication dated 28.04.2011 sent by the said respondent, which is not referred to in Ext. P9. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that there is considerable force in the submission made by the petitioner and that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the second respondent. Accordingly, Ext. P9 is set aside, in so far as same is concerned with the petitioner herein and the second respondent is directed to consider Ext. P8 and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be finalized in accordance with W.P. (C) No. 17484 of 2011 : 3 : law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd