The court reinforced due process in administrative actions by requiring notice and opportunity for parties affected by administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. To issue a writ of certiorary or any other writ, order or direction directing to call for the records leading to Exhibit P4 and P5 and quash the same.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the application for regularisation of the temporary construction.

iii. Grant such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv. to dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents.

(SIC)

2. The 1^st petitioner is a senior citizen aged 79 years. She is suffering from diffrent ailments is the submission. Her husband Gopinathan Nair possessed 2 Ares 79 sq meter of property by way of document No.1888/1995 and 1889/1995 in Chithara Village is the further submission. According to the petitioners, he constructed a commercial building in the year 2008 in the said property by obtaining a valid permit for the same. The 2^nd petitioner is the tenant of the 1^st petitioner is the submission. The 2^nd petitioner started a partnership business of Tiles and Granites with one Hussain, in the name and style “Friends Granites and Tiles”. It is submitted that he made some temporary extension to the said building in the year 2010, in connection with his business. It is also submitted that there has been no room of complaint from anybody against the said temporary construction. While so, the 3^rd respondent made some complaint against the above said building, alleging that there are some unauthorized construction in the building of the petitioner, which is situated adjacent to the property of the 3^rd respondent. On 13.04.2024 the 1^st petitioner received a notice dated 11.04.2024 by respondents 1 and 2 directing to remove the unauthorized construction in which it is stated that, there is an order of the Ombudsman to remove the construction. It is the case of the petitioners that there is no notice issued to the petitioners from the Ombudsman regarding the said order. Now respondents 1 and 2 issued a notice stating to remove the unauthorized construction within 7 days. At that stage, this writ petition was filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat.

4. Petitioners challenged Exts.P4 and P5. This Court perused Ext.P4, which is a notice issued based on an order passed by the Ombudsman, as evident by Ext.P5. A perusal of Ext.P5 would not show that it is an order passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 1^st petitioner, who is the a party. The cause title of Ext.P5 itself would show that it is an order without issuing notice to the 1^st petitioner. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that without going to the merit of the case, Exts.P4 and P5 can be set aside and the Ombudsman can be directed to reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners also.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Exts.P4 and P5 are set aside.

2. The Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law.

sd/-