Administrative authorities must adhere to the principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity for a hearing to the affected party before issuing orders that impact business operations or property usage.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling forth the records culminated in the issuance of Exts P4 and P7, and quash the same.

(ii) Issue an order staying the operation of Exts P4 and P7, and direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful enjoyment, possession and conduct of business in the bunk described in Exts P4 and P7.

(iii) May dispense with filing translation of vernacular document.

(iv) Issue such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the nature and course of the proceedings.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is the proprietor of a small business concern in the name and style “Ilaneerpanthal”, which is mainly engaged in the business of vending tender coconuts, in a bunk at Zero junction near the Quit India Memorial, Alappuzha, for the last 41 years. It is the case of the petitioner that under the Bunk Rehabilitation Scheme, the 1^st respondent allocated the said bunk to the petitioner, by order dated 19.08.2005. Despite complying with deposit requirements, certain political influence led to actions on the part of the respondents to try to transfer the petitioner from there, after demolishing the bunk is the contention of the petitioner. Then the petitioner filed O.S No.101/2007 before the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court, but later reversed in AS No. 115/2008 vide Ext.P1 Judgment, by the District Court, Alappuzha, thereby restrained the respondents from demolishing the bunk, submitted by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner holds necessary registrations for the business, as evident by Exts. P2, P2(a) and P3 is the further submission. The petitioner produced Exts. P6 and P6(a) photographs showing the nature of the business in the bunk shop. While so, it is submitted that, a portion of a tree fell on the bunk causing slight damage to its roof and the petitioner made minimal repairs by replacing the damaged tin sheet roof with the very same material, without altering the structure. However, the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P4 stop memo, alleging unauthorized construction is the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply as evident by Ext.P5(a) acknowledgment receipt, explaining the facts, it is submitted. But, the 2^nd respondent issued a notice ordering cessation of business without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is the contention. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

4. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality.

5. This Court perused Ext.P7 notice. A perusal of the same would not show that it is an order passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The main grievance raised by the petitioner is that the impugned order is passed without giving an opportunity of hearing and if an opportunity of hearing is given, the petitioner will be able to substantiate his case.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, there can be a direction to the Municipality to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. To facilitate the Municipality to reconsider the matter, Ext.P7 can be set aside.

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

1. Exhibit P7 notice is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months fro