Failure to provide procedural fairness in administrative hearings warrants reconsideration and stays coercive actions until resolved.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"a) issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate Writ Orders to quash Ext. P14. b) issue a Writ of mandamus or other directions to the respondents to receive advertisement tax as per rules in the matter of hoardings covered by Ext. P14 and drop all proceedings to recover fine or regularization fees and to take coercive steps against the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

c) direct the respondents to pay the cost of this proceedings to the petitioner and d) allow such other relief that the petitioner may pray for and this Hon'ble Court deems fit during the pendency of the proceeding."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner exhibited two hoarding advertisements with effect from 2007. Up to 2012, the respondent Corporation received advertisement tax also as evident by Exts.P4 to P7, is the submission. Thereafter, on compulsion on the part of the respondents, the petitioner submitted application for enlargement of permits by virtue of Exts.P8 and P9, is the further submission. No action was taken on Exts.P8 and P9. Thereafter, on 05.04.2004, the 2^nd respondent communicated a notice to the petitioner demanding huge regularisation fee for regularisation of the hoardings. The petitioner submitted Ext.P10 reply to the above notice. By virtue of Ext.P11, the 2^nd respondent, on the allegation that the hoardings are unauthorized, demanded exorbitant amount of Rs.2,79,000/- and Rs.1,39,500/- for regularization of the hoardings, in addition to the arrears of advertisement tax and fine which would be calculated on a future date, is the submission. It is stated in the Writ Petition that, prosecution steps against the petitioner were also intimated. The petitioner approached this Court with a Writ Petition and this Court as per Ext.P12 judgment directed the Secretary of the Corporation to consider the representation. Ext.P13 is the hearing notice issued by the 2^nd respondent. Thereafter, Ext.P14 proceedings was issued, by which the contentions of the petitioner were rejected. Aggrieved by Ext.P14, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused Ext.P12 judgment of this Court.

This Court directed the 1^st respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the law and pass appropriate orders thereon within one month, and till then further coercive steps were kept in abeyance. The 1^st respondent in Ext.P12 is the Corporation of Kochi represented by its Secretary. A perusal of Ext.P14 would show that the 1^st respondent delegated the 2^nd respondent to conduct a hearing and based on the hearing conducted by the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent passed Ext.P14. I think that procedure adopted by the 1^st respondent is not correct. When this Court directed the 1^st respondent to consider the representation, the 1^st respondent ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. I am of the considered opinion that the 1^st respondent has to reconsider the matter as directed by this Court in Ext.P12 judgment.

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

1. Ext.P14 is set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to a representative of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

3. All coercive steps taken against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till final orders are passed as directed above.

4. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this Writ Petition with exhibits before the 1^st respon