IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34032 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MANU SAJU, S/O.SAJU CHACKO, MENACHERRY HOUSE, ANGAMALY, PIN-683 572, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN-680 121. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. 3. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KORATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 308. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.34086 OF2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 34032 & 34086 OF 2010 ========================== Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T In both these writ petitions, petitioner made Ext.P1 applications to the 2nd respondent seeking orders under Act 28 of 2008. That applications were rejected by Ext.P3. It is challenging Ext.P3 and seeking fresh consideration of Ext.P1 applications, the writ petitions are filed. 2. From Exts.P3 and P4 counter filed, it is evident that the orders were passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, it is obvious that the orders are passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. For that reason, Ext.P3 order in these writ petitions are quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P1 applications made by the petitioner with notice to him and in accordance with law. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp