The court emphasized the requirement of natural justice in administrative proceedings, mandating a hearing prior to decision-making.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner’s husband, late Narayanan, is stated to have been holding 28 cents of land in Survey No.861 of Palakkad Village. The afore property was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894. The compensation was fixed pursuant to the award issued and was paid to the petitioner belatedly. So also, some amounts representing the tax payable under the Income Tax Act , 1961, were deducted while making payment to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application dated 02.08.2023 (Ext.P19), before the 3^rd respondent herein, pointing out that she was entitled for interest on the delayed payment, as well as for refund of the tax deducted at source as above. By the order at Ext.P20 dated 10.10.2023, the afore representation having been rejected by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Heard Sri.K.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.

3. Though the learned Government Pleader states that a counter affidavit requires to be filed in the matter, I am of the opinion that, in view of the directions proposed to be issued while disposing of the writ petition, further time need not be granted for filing a counter affidavit

4. A reading of Ext.P20 shows that the application at Ext.P19 is disposed of. However, the order at Ext.P20 does not show that the petitioner was granted an opportunity of being heard before passing the afore order. Therefore, there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires a reconsideration at the hands of the 3^rd respondent.

In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand disposed of as under;

i.

Ext.P20 order is set aside.

ii. The 3^rd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P19, after granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in the matter, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE