Denial of a hearing in administrative decisions violates the principle of natural justice as mandated by Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act.

JUDGMENT

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

"i. To issue a writ of certiorari calling for records relating to Ext P5 and quash the same.

ii. Pass appropriate order dispensing with the translation of vernacular documents produced in the Memorandum of Writ Petition and accepting the same.

iii. Such other relief this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order passed in accordance with Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994 (for short ‘Act 1994’). Admittedly, it is an appealable order. Therefore, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Suresh K. v. Municipal Corporation of Kollam [ 2026 (1) KHC 406 ], the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

3. At this stage, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 406 (2) of Act 1994. The counsel submitted that a perusal of Ext.P5 would show that only a provisional order is passed, and that there is no show cause in accordance with (2) and thereafter a hearing.

4. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation takes me through the statement filed by the Corporation, in which the contentions are mainly on merit.

5. Section 406 (2) of Act 1994 says that the Secretary shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under subsection (1) on the owner, or on the person for whom such work is done, together with a notice requiring him to show cause within a reasonable time, to be specified in such notice, why the order should not be confirmed. (3) says that, where the owner or the person for whom the work is done fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Secretary, the Secretary may confirm the order or modify the same to such extent as he may think fit to make, and such order shall then be binding on the owner or the person for whom the work is done and on failure to comply with the order, the Secretary may himself cause the building or part thereof to be demolished or the well dismantled, as the case may be, and the expenses thereof shall be recoverable from the owner or such person.

6. This Court perused Ext.P5 order. In Ext.P5, it is stated that, provisional order along with a show cause was issued. But, the grievance of the petitioner is that no hearing was conducted thereafter. Moreover, the other contention of the petitioner is that there is no speaking order adverting the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P4. I think there is some force in the above argument of the petitioner.

7. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration before this Court 04.03.2024, this Court directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner, and that interim order was extended regularly. At this distance of time, it will be an injustice if this Court relegate the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. In Suresh’s case (supra), this Court observed that, in certain circumstances, this Court can invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially when there is violation of natural justice. In this case, the grievance of the petitioner is that, no hearing was conducted and the contentions of the petitioner were not adverted in Ext.P5. For that simple reason, I think the impugned order can be set aside and there can be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to proceed with the provisional order in accordance with Section 406 of Act 1994 after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. To facilitate the Corporation to pass a fresh order, the impugned order can be set aside. I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit and the Corporation is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with th