IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12925 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD,BRISTOW ROAD,WILLINGDON ISLAND,COCHIN-682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-LEGAL,M.R.M.V.H.MENON. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. TRAVANCORE FOUNDATIONS,MANAPALLY SOUTH, SRP MARKET(PO),KARUNAGAPALLY,KOLLAM DISTRICT, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.SUDHAKUMAR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 12925 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order passed by the District Collector, Pathanamthitta, in an appeal filed against Ext.P8 order, by the 5th respondent. Ext.P8 order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in exercise of powers under the Transfer of Registry Rules, wherein mutation of certain properties in favour of the 5th respondent has been cancelled as illegal. The 5th respondent filed an appeal before the District Collector, in which, the District Collector without hearing the petitioner passed Ext.P9 order, finding that when the matter was posted for hearing before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 9.10.2007, the 5th respondent applied for an adjournment, which ought to have been granted, but without granting the same, orders were passed. Therefore, the District Collector directed reconsideration of the matter after hearing both sides. The contention of the petitioner is that the Collector did not hear the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 2. Technically I am satisfied that the petitioner's contention is correct. When an appeal comes up before the District Collector, the District Collector could not have validly passed an order on the same, without hearing the other side, which in this case is the petitioner. But I do not think that for that purpose, the matter should be remanded to w.p.c.12925/10 2 the District Collector, because it would only prolong and perhaps may not even benefit the petitioner. It is not disputed before me that before the R.D.O., the 5th respondent had requested for adjournment of the hearing on 9.10.2007, which was not granted. It is not as if, before the R.D.O. this was an old case necessitating immediate disposal. That being so, it is only proper that the 3rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer considers the matter again after considering all contentions of both parties as directed in Ext.P9 order. But the 3rd respondent should see that the matter is not protracted further at the instance of the 5th respondent or even the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that pursuant to Ext.P9 order, the RDO has again heard both sides and only orders are to be pronounced. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders as directed in Ext.P9, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. While passing orders, the 3rd respondent shall consider every contention raised by the parties and the order shall contain the reasons as to why the contentions raised by the parties are not sustainable, particularly with reference to the contention of the petitioner that in view of the pendency of O.S.No.75/2004 before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, filed by the 5th respondent, it would be w.p.c.12925/10 3 improper for the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass orders as it would result in conflicting decisions. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge