The court emphasizes the necessity for authorities to consider objections raised by appellants to ensure justice is served in administrative decision-making.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellants challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)No.18687/2020, primarily asserting that the imprimatur granted therein to Ext.R8(l) report of sketch and survey settled by the competent Authorities is improper and illegal because, they were not heard, nor were they given any opportunity at the time when it was so done.

2. Sri.R.Reji – learned counsel for the appellants, pointed out that, as evident from the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has fully approved Ext.R8(l) and has only directed the Authorities to take follow-up action, after hearing his clients. He argued that this will now lead to a situation where the dispute between the parties has been prejudged, with his clients only in a position to object to the further action and not to the fundamental cause. He prayed that, therefore, the impugned judgment be set aside and the Authorities concerned be directed to conduct a fresh survey after hearing all sides.

3. Sri.K.Mohana Kannan – learned counsel for respondents 8 and 9, in response, submitted that the afore contention of the appellants is not tenable because, Ext.R8(l) was settled after following due procedure by the competent Authorities in obedience to Ext.R8(k) judgment of this Court. He argued that, if the appellants had any cause against Ext.R8(l), they ought to have challenged it, which they have not done even though the same was placed on record as part of the papers in the Writ Petition by his clients through their counter affidavit. He prayed that, therefore, this Appeal be dismissed.

4. Sri.B.S.Syamanthak – learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submitted that Ext.R8(l) has been settled after following due procedure and after hearing all parties; but, to a pointed question from this Court, he conceded that the appellants had not been given an opportunity, however, arguing that it was not necessary because they did not make any objection, nor had raised any plea at the time when it was done. He also, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be affirmed.

5. Smt.Saritha Venugopal – learned Standing Counsel for the 7^th respondent – Panchayat, submitted that her client has no independent view in this matter and will abide by any directions to be issued by this Court.

6. We have considered the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, and notice – as rightly argued by Sri.R.Reji – that it has approved Ext.R8(l) and has directed the Authorities to take ‘further proceedings’ pursuant to it. The effect of this direction is that Ext.R8(l) has been virtually granted imprimatur and it is here that the controversy between the parties still subsist.

7. Even though Sri.K.Mohana Kannan and Sri.Syamanthak assert that Ext.R8(l) has been settled after following due procedure, even a cursory glance through it would show that the appellants were never given an opportunity of showing cause against the action, nor were they in a position to impel their objections, if any. Of course, the factual situation is amorphous as to whether the appellants were aware of the proceedings that led to Ext.R8(l).

8. Be that as it may, we do not think that it is necessary for us to stir up the controversy any further, or to create fresh strife between the parties. We are of the firm view that the interest of justice would subserve both parties if the appellants are allowed to file objections to Ext.R8(l) before the competent Authority, so that the said Authority can decide whether any modification to the same is necessary; and then continue with further proceedings as directed by the learned Single Jude. Thi