IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14676 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.P.JOSE,S/O.PORINCHU, VADAKKAN HOUSE, P.O.WADAKKANCHERRY RAILWAY STATION WADAKKANCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR,CIVIL STATION,THRISSUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION,TALAPPILLY,WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY G.P.SRI.K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14676 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 notice issued by the second respondent directing the petitioner to vacate certain properties mentioned therein on the ground that the petitioner has encroached into government land. One of the contention raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P1 has been issued in violation of principles of natural justice, in so far as before issuing the same the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of being heard. 2. I have heard learned Government Pleader also. 3. From a reading of Ext.P1, I find that there is no mention of any notice or hearing therein. The Government Pleader was not able to satisfy me that Ext.P1 order was passed after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. For that reason Ext.P1 is liable to be quashed. However, if Ext.P1 is considered as notice, it may not be necessary to quash the same. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The second respondent shall treat Ext.P1 as a show-cause notice directing the petitioner to show-cause why the action proposed in Ext.P1 should not be implemented. The petitioner shall file his objections to Ext.P1 within two weeks. Thereafter, the second W.P.(C).No.14676 of 2010 2 respondent shall issue a notice to the petitioner fixing a date for hearing. On that date the petitioner shall be present with his evidence in support of his contentions. After hearing the petitioner, the second respondent shall pass a final order pursuant to Ext.P1, considering the contentions in the evidence of the petitioner and dealing with the same which shall be evident from the order itself. Until two weeks after service of the order on the petitioner, petitioner shall not be visited with any coercive action. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE cms