Court emphasized the right to access documents relied upon in administrative proceedings, ensuring due process is followed.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the District Collector. The petitioner was initially issued with a demand for an amount of Rs.14,20,491/- alleging that the petitioner has unauthorisedly removed 76513 M.T of granite from the puramboke land and proceedings were initiated as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act , 1957. Appeal and revision were preferred, which were ultimately dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.5513 of 2019, which was disposed of as per Ext.P3, setting aside Exts.P1 and P2 and directing the appellate authority to reconsider the matter. In Ext.P3 judgment, there was a specific direction that if the petitioner makes an application before the 3rd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer all materials and reports which he would require for prosecuting the appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall furnish with copies of all materials and reports which is relied on against the petitioner in the impugned proceedings, within a period of 10 days.

2. The specific case of the petitioner is that the copies of materials and reports that have been relied on against the petitioner in the impugned proceedings have not been furnished to the petitioner. It is further averred that the petitioner repeatedly pointed out that he was not served with documents purportedly relied on by the respondents, the 1st respondent closed the hearing without affording the petitioner proper opportunity to contest the matter and passed Ext.P4 order. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P4 order was issued after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P4.

4. It is seen that no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. In Ext.P3 judgment, there is a specific direction to issue all the reports and materials relied on by the authorities to find the petitioner liable and consequent imposition of penalty on the petitioner. The specific averment in paragraph 6 of the writ petition is that copies were not furnished to the petitioner, and without doing so, Ext.P4 order has been issued, which is in clear violation of the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment.

5. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P4 order is liable to be interfered with. Therefore, the above writ petition is disposed of as follows:

Ext.P4 is set aside. The petitioner may make a request before the 1st respondent, District Collector, for the issuance of copies of reports and materials, which the petitioner requires for properly prosecuting the appeal within a period of

3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, the District Collector shall furnish such reports and materials, if required, by collecting the same from the 2^nd respondent and serve a copy on the petitioner within a period of 3 weeks thereafter. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the petitioner shall be reconsidered by the 1^st respondent, and an order shall be passed without any delay, at any rate, within an outer limit of 3 months thereafter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner strictly complying with a direction issued by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment. Till a decision is taken as directed above, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance.