The court affirmed the necessity of due process in administrative actions, emphasizing the right to be heard before any adverse decisions are made.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is residing along with his family in a property comprised in Re-Sy.No.191, Block No.30 of Oorakam Village, Thrissur District which comes within the jurisdiction of the 2^nd respondent Panchayath, has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P4 order issued by the Panchayath.

2. As per Ext.P4 order, the petitioner was directed to remove certain constructions, including a board installed by him showing the name of a temple, alleged to have been made by him illegally. Besides, the petitioner was interdicted from using the loudspeaker and also directed to reduce the noise of the bell used by him for conducting poojas on his property. The case of the petitioner is that, Ext.P4 was issued by the Panchayath without hearing the petitioner and acting upon the complaint submitted by the 4^th respondent, who is one of the neighbours of the said property.

3. A counter affidavit is submitted by the 4th respondent, who appeared in person before this Court. It is averred in the counter affidavit that, in the property of the petitioner, the petitioner made certain illegal constructions and conducted poojas by utilising the building constructed by him as a temple and by giving access to the public. According to the 4^th respondent, the petitioner did not take any permission for using the said building for religious worship as contemplated under the Guidelines for Maintaining Communal Harmony, from the District Collector. Besides, it was also pointed out that, the petitioner did not obtain any permission for the said construction as well. According to the 4^th respondent the activities in the property of the petitioner are causing serious inconvenience to the 4^th respondent and his family members as well.

4. The panchayath has also filed a counter affidavit, wherein the fact that, the petitioner had constructed two buildings in the property without obtaining any permit and also that, the said buildings are used by the petitioner as small temples are admitted. The fact that, the petitioner did not obtain any permission for using the said buildings as religious places was also highlighted.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the panchayath and the 4^th respondent, who appeared in person, I am of the view that, as the petitioner is allegedly carrying out certain constructions without any permit and using the same for the religious worship without permission from the authorities concerned, some orders have to be issued. Of course, it is true that the petitioner asserted that, the poojas that are being conducted inside his property is a private affair and it is not intended for public purpose. However, the said fact is seriously disputed by the respondents. Besides there is also allegation that, the aforesaid activities are being carried out in a building which was constructed without obtaining a building permit as contemplated under the relevant building rules. However, while considering this issue, the specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, Ext.P4 was passed merely acting upon the complaint submitted by the 4^th respondent and without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. On going through Ext P4, it can be seen that, no opportunity for being heard was granted to the petitioner. Therefore, it is only proper that, proceedings already initiated as per Ext.P4 be finalized after giving the petitioner an opportunity to submit his objections and after hearing the petitioner and the 4^th respondent or any other affected parties.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to permit the petitioner to submit an objection to Ext.P4 and in case such an objection is submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the 3^rd respondent, after hearing the petitioner and the 4th respondent or any other affected parti