IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 28704 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ D. VIDHYADHARAN, V.P. PRAVEEN BHAVAN, KARIMKULAM, PUTHIYATHUR POST, NEYYATINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SMT.S.AMBIKA DEVI,SC FOR KWA. FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28704 of 2008(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 28704 of 2008 ................................................. Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of the Kerala Water Authority, whereby the petitioner's licence to work as a Plumber under the water authority has been cancelled on the ground that he gave an unauthorised connection to one Sri. Dharmayyan in place of an old water connection, from another connectioin taken unauthorisidely. According to the petitioner, he has not given any such unauthorised connection. He would submit that Ext.P2 order has been passed without affording him an opportunity of being heard. According to him not even a notice was issued to him before Ext.P2. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Ext.P2 does not refer to any notice or hearing in respect thereof. The cancellation of the petitioner's licence results in civil consequences to the petitioner. In fact it affects his livelihood itself. That being so, an order like Ext.P2 or the Government letter based on which the order has been passed, could not have W.P(C) No. 28704 of 2008 -2- been issued without first issuing the petitioner a notice and giving him an opportunity of being heard. Obviously before issuing Ext.P2 no such opportunity was given to the petitioner. Accordingly Ext.P4 is quashed. However, I make it clear that, if the respondents still intends to proceed against the petitioner, it would be open to the respondents to take further proceedings after issuing notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity of being heard so that he can controvert the allegations against him by producing materials in support of his case. But the Government letter, the conclusion in which was arrived at without hearing the petitioner shall not be the basis for such action. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs