The right to a hearing before revoking or cancelling a previously granted license is fundamental under administrative law.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : 1. “Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 and P11;

2. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents not to interfere with the quarrying operations of the petitioner;

3. To grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case; And

4. To dispense with filing of the translation of documents in vernacular language;” [sic]

2. The petitioner has obtained a letter of intent as evident by Ext.P1 for conducting quarrying operation in an extent of 0.9809 hectares of land comprised under re-survey no.

403/5 of Elamkur Village, Ernad Taluk, Malappuram District. It is the case of the petitioner that he already obtained Environmental Clearance as evident by Ext.P4, consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board as evident by Ext.P7 and Explosive Licence as evident by Ext.P6 for conducting the quarrying operations. The petitioner submitted application for license as contemplated under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 (for short Act, 1994') r/w Rule 5 of License to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship Activities and Other Services) Rules, 1996 (for short 'Rules, 1996'). The application was submitted through online mode notified by the Government of Kerala ie, K-Smart is the submission. Later, the application was approved by the 1^st respondent and license was issued to the petitioner is the submission. Later, the petitioner herein was issued with an order as evident by Ext.P10 by the 1^st respondent cancelling the license stating that the license was wrongly uploaded, when the application was pending before the 2^nd respondent is the submission. The petitioner was also issued with another order (Ext.P11) by referring to Ext.P10 order of cancellation of license, by stating that the application submitted by the petitioner for license cannot be considered. It is the case of the petitioner that Exts.P10 and P11 are issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that once the license is granted by the Secretary, he has no authority to review the order. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard.

4. This Court perused Exts.P10 and P11. It is an admitted fact that a license is issued to the petitioner as evident by Ext.P9. It is also an admitted fact that Exts.P10 and P11 are issued, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, without going to the merit of the case, I think Exts.P10 and P11 can be set aside. The Panchayat can proceed against the petitioner, in accordance to law, only after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :

1) Exts.P10 and P11 are set aside.

2) If any action is to be taken against the petitioner to cancel Ext.P9, sufficient opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner before proceeding with the case. I make it clear that the Panchayat is free to do the needful, in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3) All legal contentions raised by the petitioner are left open.

Sd/-