Due process requires that a party be given a fair hearing before adverse orders are confirmed, particularly under local self-government laws.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i) “To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby calling upon the records leading to the Exhibits P3 & P5 notices issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents and quash the same.

ii) To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby calling upon the records leading to the Exhibits P4 order passed by the Ombudsman for the Local Self Government (Respondent no.4) and quash the same.

iii) To issue such other reliefs that are found to be just and appropriate during the course of the hearing.

iv) To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.” [sic]

2. The petitioner is running a manufacturing unit which involves manufacturing of paper and paper products and also the thermal paper roll, barcode labels etc. is the submission. The aforesaid unit is running in the property belonging to the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, the 5^th respondent herein. The unit lies at Mini Industrial Estate, Parottukonam, Thiruvananthapuram. It is submitted that, the Corporation issued a notice to the 5^th respondent to remove an illegal construction in the property which is in occupation of the petitioner. When there was no response from the 5^th respondent, the confirmation order is passed as evident by Ext.P5. Ext.P3 is the vacation notice, passed after Ext.P5.

Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent.

4. Admittedly, an order under Sec. 406(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994 (for short 'Act, 1994') is passed by the Corporation, which is an appealable order and the same is not challenged before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The short point raised by the petitioner is that Ext .P5 confirmation order passed under Sec. 406(3) of the Act, 1994 is passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

5. This Court directed the Standing Counsel for the Corporation to get instructions. Now, an affidavit is filed by the 3^rd respondent. The Standing Counsel takes me through the affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent. The Standing Counsel submitted that a notice is issued to the 5^th respondent and the petitioner is doing the business as a tenant of the 5^th respondent. The Standing Counsel takes me through Sec.406(2) to (4) of the Act, 1994 and submitted that notice need to be issued either to the owner or to the person for whom such work is done. In this case, the notice is given to the 5^th respondent and therefore, the petitioner cannot take a stand that the impugned order is passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Corporation. It is an admitted fact that no notice is given to the petitioner before passing Ext.P5 confirmation order. Admittedly, the petitioner is a licensee of the 5^th respondent. It is also an admitted fact that notice is issued to the 5^th respondent before passing Ext.P5 confirmation order. But, since the petitioner is in possession of the property and a specific contention is raised that an opportunity of hearing is not given and several other contentions are also raised in this writ petition, I think one more opportunity of hearing can be given to the petitioner to raise his contentions. I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit. Therefore, Exts.P3 and P5 orders can be set aside for giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Corporation authority can pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I make it clear that no provisional o