Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 19244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ABDUL RAHMAN – Appellant
Versus
THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 16916 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.SIJU, SHRI.S.ABHILASH, SMT.ANJANA KANNATH, SMT.SAFNA P.S., SHRI.GAUTHAM SIJU
For the Respondents: SHRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SMT.M.M.BABY, SRI K JANARDHANA SHENOY
Failure to adhere to procedural fairness under established statutes leads to invalid administrative actions.
Headnote:This Writ Petition seeks to quash notices issued without hearing the petitioner, arguing they contravene Section 406 of Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994. The court found the notices issued lacked due process, thus setting them aside while permitting the authority to revisit the case pursuant to proper procedure. The court underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in administrative actions.
Result: Exts.P2 and P5 are set aside, and authorities instructed to follow legal protocol.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to administrative actions for lack of proper procedure. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's decision directing compliance with procedural fairness. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" i. To call for records leading to Ext.P2 and P5 and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.
ii. To declare that Ext.P2 and P5 are violative of principles of natural justice and passed without following the procedure envisaged under law and hence not sustainable in law.
iii. To direct the 3rd respondent to place Ext.P3 appeal before the council in a time bound manner.
iv. To pass such other reliefs that this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
v. To permit the petitioner to dispense with filing of translation of exhibits in vernacular language along with the writ petition."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is a licensee who is conducting a hotel/restaurant, namely Al-Baike, in a rented building. According to the petitioner, he is conducting the restaurant with all the statutory license and permits. The 4th respondent issued Ext.P2 notice to demolish certain construction stating that it is encroaching drainage. The contention of the petitioner is that, without following Section 406 of the Kerala Municipalities Act , 1994 (for short Act 1994) and without hearing the petitioner, the notice is issued. Moreover, the 1st respondent Ombudsman also passed Ext.P5 order without hearing the petitioner is the grievance. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation, the Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. I also heard the Government Pleader.
3. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that Ext.P2 is only a preliminary notice. But, a perusal of the same would show that, it is an order to remove the unauthorised structures. Admittedly, the proceedings under Section 406 of the Act 1994 are not followed. As far as Ext.P5 is concerned, the petitioner has got a definite case that he received notice only on 28.11.2024, whereas, Ext.P5 order was passed on 27.11.2024. In such circumstances, Ext.P2 and P5 can be set aside, and the Authority concerned can proceed in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 5th respondent.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1. Exts.P2 and P5 are set aside.
2. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are free to proceed in accordance with the law, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 5th respondent.
3. The 1st respondent is also free to proceed with complaint No.412/2024, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, 5th respondent and the Corporation in accordance with law.
Sd/-
