IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13072 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P. LALITHA BAI AMMA, D/O. PADMAKSHI AMMA, AGED 64 YEARS, FLAT NO. BF4(D) 102, THYCAUD HOUSING SCHEME, METTUKKADA, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR, SMT.M.S.KIRAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN-695 001. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 3. REGIONAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.A. JAYASANKAR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 13072 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 28/08/1986 EXECUTED BETWEEN SMT.G. SUKUMARI AND KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT DATED 26/05/1999 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER SMT.G. SUKUMARI AND THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31/03/2010. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/04/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS SHOWING THE ISSUE OF REPRESENTATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF Rs.1,09,850/-. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 85 OF THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD ACT 1971 DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF Rs.1,14,803/-. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 13072 OF 2011 (H) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3, P5, P8 and P9. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that by Exts.P3 and P5, demands were made on the petitioner for payment of `1,03,153/-. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 objection. She was issued a notice asking her to appear before the 2nd respondent for hearing. However, stating that the petitioner did not appear in response to the notice, Ext.P8 order was passed confirming the demand. Subsequently, she was issued Ext.P9 demand notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount. This was followed by Ext.P10 eviction order. It is at that stage the writ petition is filed. 2. According to the petitioner, she could not appear for hearing before the 2nd respondent on the designated date for the reason that the notice was received only on the day next to the date specified for hearing. 3. From the materials produced by the petitioner, it is obvious that there is substance in what the petitioner contends. In WPC No. 13072/11 :2 : that view of the matter, I feel that the 2nd respondent should give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in the matter. In order to enable the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter as above, I quash Ext.P8 order, Ext.P9 demand notice and Ext.P10 eviction order. Writ petition is therefore disposed of quashing the aforesaid proceedings and directing that the 2nd respondent will issue notice to the petitioner, afford her an opportunity of hearing and pass fresh orders in the matter. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp