A requirement for personal hearing must be upheld before issuing orders by an authority. Failure to do so renders the order illegal.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P14 proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent District Collector, invoking the power under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2008’).

2. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that, there is a statutory remedy of filing a revision under Section 28 of the Act, 2008, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the District Collector is illegal, inasmuch as the authority who heard the petitioner is, the Deputy Collector(LR) and the order is passed by the District Collector, which is impermissible. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Sanija A. v. State of Kerala and others [2020 (4) KHC 301] in support of his contention. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that as per Ext.P12 notice, the hearing was scheduled to be held before the Deputy Collector(LR), who heard the petitioner.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the 2^nd respondent District Collector before passing Ext.P14 order, ought to have afford a personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside Ext.P14 with a consequential direction to the 2^nd respondent District Collector to reconsider the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent himself, and after considering the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his contentions.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-