The importance of procedural adherence in administrative actions and preserving individuals' rights to contest such actions.

Headnote:
Procedure - Writ Petition - N/A - The court assessed the respondent’s procedural adherence in initiating steps against the petitioner, allowing for fresh proceedings while preserving the petitioner’s rights to challenge any resulting actions.
Fact of the Case:

The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit claiming procedural violations in actions against the petitioner and sought to withdraw notices while reserving the right to initiate fresh proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The court permitted the 2nd respondent to initiate fresh proceedings based on the challenged notices, reaffirming that this would not affect the petitioner's right to contest any future proceedings.
Issues: Whether the 2nd respondent followed proper procedures in initiating actions against the petitioner, and the effects of allowing fresh proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized procedural compliance and the importance of preserving the petitioner’s rights in the event of new actions taken against them.
Final Decision: Writ petition closed; fresh proceedings allowed with preservation of petitioner’s rights.

JUDGMENT

The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that they received a legal opinion that there is a violation of the procedure in initiating the steps against the petitioner and that the committee has decided to proceed afresh. Permission is also sought for withdrawing Ext.P13 and Ext.P15, reserving the right of the 2nd respondent to issue fresh proceedings.

In the light of the affidavit by the 2nd respondent, this writ petition is closed. The 2nd respondent is permitted to issue a fresh proceedings on the basis of Ext.P13 and Ext.P15 notices. It is made clear that the above direction will not in any manner prejudice the rights of the petitioner to challenge any proceedings that may be initiated against him.

Sd/- T.R.RAVI JUDGE LEK APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11172/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR 2017- 18 Exhibit P2 COPY OF RELEVENT PAGE OF REPORT ON MILK TRADE Exhibit P3 COPY OF RELEVENT PAGE OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT Exhibit P4 REGISTARED LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT BY THE PETITIONER 05.11.2019 Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.01.2021 GIVEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE LETTER ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT P5 EXPLANATION FORM 3RD RESPONDENT. NOT LEGIBLE RETYPED MARKED AS EXHIBIT P6 (a)

Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT 07.11.2019 SEND TO THE MINISTER AND DIRECTOR Exhibit P8 COPY OF LETTER GIVEN TO C.K.RAJAN DATED

11.02.2020.

Exhibit P9 COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 11.02.2020 TO DY S P VACB, WAYANAD. AND ITS RECEIPT AS P 9 (a).

Exhibit P10 COPY OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.03.2020.

Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DISTRICT INSPECTION TEAM.

Exhibit P12 COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B 1011 2020 DATED

30.09.2020 Exhibit P13 COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.02.2022 TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P14 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.02.2022.

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION NOTICE DATED

11.03.2022.

Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY 19.03.2022.

Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVENT PAGE OF BYE LAW OF 2ND RESPONDENT

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41711

HIGH COURT OF KERALAT. R. Ravi, JJos Thuruthymattom – AppellantVersusSTATE OF KERALA – RespondentWP(C)/11172/2022

The importance of procedural adherence in administrative actions and preserving individuals' rights to contest such actions.

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
Jos Thuruthymattom – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/11172/2022