IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 9369 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.V.SREEDHARAN, 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.V.VELU, 3/94, SREYAS, KUNNAMPURAM, KALPATHY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD - 678001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD - 678001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD - 678001. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD 2 VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678002. 5. SRI.P.K.KUNJAN, USHUS, KUNNAMPURAM, KALPATHY, PALAKKAD - 678003. ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN FOR R5 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.9369/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.11.09. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF VILLAGE OFFICER NO.519/09 DT 16.12.2009. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER NO.NIL DATED 6.1.2010. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CONDITIONAL ORDER ISSUED BY RDO IN MC 02/10 DT 18.1.10. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF HEARING NOTICE ISSUED by the TAHSILDAR NO.D2010/2624/9/500 DT 12.5.2010. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D2010/2 624/9/500 DT 9.6.2010 OF TAHSILDAR. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RDO DT 7.2.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 9369 OF 2011 (U) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P4 and P6. Ext.P4 is a conditional order passed under Section 133(1)(d) of the Cr.PC and Ext.P6 is the final order passed. Since Ext.P6 final order is passed, nothing survives to be considered in so far as Ext.P4 is concerned. 2. In so far as Ext.P6 is concerned, counsel points out that after Ext.P4 order was passed, the parties were issued Ext.P5 notice dated 12/5/2010 scheduling hearing on 30/6/2010. It is stated that however Ext.P6 order was passed on 9/6/2010 and that the said order was passed without hearing the affected parties. Although the learned Government Pleader made an attempt to state that the date indicated in Ext.P6 namely 9/6/2010 was a factual mistake, there is nothing to substantiate the said contention. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to think that the matter requires a fresh consideration. 3. It is true that the 5th respondent raised a contention that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that WPC No.9369/11 :2 : statutory remedies are available to the petitioner against Ext.P6. Although it is true that such statutory remedies are available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Cr.P.C itself, still having regard to the fact that in passing Ext.P6 natural justice is violated, I am inclined to think that the petitioner should not be relegated to pursue the alternate remedy at this distance of time. Therefore, that plea of the 5th respondent is rejected. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition setting aside Ext.P6 and directing that the 3rd respondent shall reconsider the matter and pass orders in accordance with law. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp