IMPORTANT POINT
The principles of natural justice require that affected parties be heard before administrative decisions, especially in safety matters, to ensure fairness and objectivity.

JUDGMENT :

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To call for the records leading upto Exts.P4 and P7 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction ;

(ii) To call for the records leading upto Ext.P8 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction ;

(iii) To declare that the orders Exts.P4 and P7 are violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India ;

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to carry on his business as before irrespective of the issuance of Ext.P4 order ; and

(v) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

Brief facts:

2. Petitioner had been issued with a jetty licence by the Cochin Port Trust on a piece of land owned by it alongside the port waters close to the Junkar Jetty at Fort Kochi. Petitioner holds a dealership licence issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) to run a fuel station from the abovementioned jetty and the said facility, which comprises the jetty, slipway/ boat shed has been catering to the fuel needs of the fishing boats since decades. Petitioner claims to have been assiduously meeting the mandates of the jetty licence issued by the Port Trust. Fishing boats would traverse the backwaters and arrive at the petitioner’s facility to fill in diesel and thereafter proceed to the sea. While so, on 26.08.2015, at around 13.40 hours, a collision occurred between a fishing boat and a passenger boat in the backwaters. Eleven human lives were lost in the tragic incident. The collision point was around 90 meters from the fuel bunk jetty. Soon thereafter, an Order dated 31.08.2015 (Ext.P4) was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Conservator (R4) of the Cochin Port Trust directing the petitioner to “immediately cease functioning of the jetty and any operation that may be conducted through the jetty”. The reason stated in the Order for directing such closure was that “apart from the reckless navigation of the fishing boat, a factor that may have contributed to the accident is the location of a fuel station in the close vicinity of the junkar, ferry boat and tourist jetties in Fort Kochi.” The petitioner was not heard or put on notice before issuing such an Order for immediate closure of the fuel bunk jetty. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner moved this Court filing W.P.(C) No.26565 of 2015 inter alia alleging violation of natural justice and bias on the part of the 4th respondent. This Court vide Ext.P5 judgment in the said W.P.(C) concluded that an opportunity of being heard ought to have been afforded to the petitioner before issuance of Ext.P4 Order and it was directed that Ext.P4 ought to be treated only as a notice and the petitioner shall be afforded a hearing before a final decision is taken on the matter. Taking specific note of the allegation of bias raised by the petitioner against the 4th respondent (Deputy Conservator), this Court in Ext.P5 judgment directed that the 3rd respondent (Chairman of the Port Trust) shall hear the petitioner and shall pass final orders. In furtherance of the said judgment, a hearing was held by the 3rd respondent pursuant to which Ext.P7 dated 16.10.2015 was issued confirming Ext.P4 Order. In Ext.P7, the petitioner was directed to immediately close down the jetty inter alia on the ground that “facts do compel a reassessment of the potential for harm of the jetty”. The 3rd respondent had issued Ext.P7 based on Ext.P8 Inquiry Report submitted by the 4th respondent Deputy Conservator, about which the petitioner had no knowledge or information. Hence this Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner inter alia seeking to quash Ext.P7.

3. A counter affidavit was filed by respondents 2 to 4 defending Ext.P7. It was inter alia c