IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14610 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.MANIKANTAN, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, THUNDIL VEEDU, VADAKUKARA EAST,UDAYANALOOR P.O.,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KOLLAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,KOLLAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE SUPERITNTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS DIVISION, KOLLAM. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 14610/2008. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT. 28-11-1997. EXT.P1(a) CERTIFICATE DT. 27-7-2001. EXT.P2 NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DT. 17-4-1996. EXT.P3 LETTER DT. 16-7-1996. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 8-10-1998. EXT.P5 NOC DT. 3-6-2003. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 10-8-2004. EXT.P7 JUDGMENT DT. 8-6-2006. EXT.P8 NOTICE DT. 7-5-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No.14610 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 13th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 notice, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the bunk shop occupied by him. The contention is that Ext.P8 order has been issued in violation of Ext.P7 judgment in so far as the petitioner has not been given an opportunity of being heard before passing Ext.P8 as directed in Ext.P7. It is also stated that no reasons are also mentioned in Ext.P8, despite direction in Ext. P7 to do so. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 5. 3. In Ext.P7 it is directed thus: “The petitioner is a 100% disabled person. There is an interim order ever since 8.12.2005. There is no counter affidavit. The writ petition is disposed of making it clear that in case any further action is to be taken in the matter, the petitioner shall be issued notice, his objection shall be considered and a speaking order shall be passed and communicated to him by the second respondent. He shall also be given a further time of one month from the date of receipt of such communication so as to enable him to pursue his grievance if any, on such action taken by the District Collector.” 4. From Ext.P8, it is clear that the petitioner has not been heard in the matter. Ext.P8 is also not a speaking order. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. W.P.C. No. 14610/98. -: 2 :- Ext.P8 shall be treated as a show cause notice directing the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be directed to remove the bunk shop occupied by him by the side of the road. The petitioner shall file his objections within two weeks from today. The 4th respondent shall thereafter afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass a speaking order giving the reasons for evicting the petitioner and considering each and every contention of the petitioner in respect of the same. Till the above process is completed the petitioner shall not be evicted from the bunk shop. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/