S.I. PROPERTY (KERALA) PVT. LTD Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P14 order of the first respondent rejecting an application for building permit submitted by him. According to the petitioner, the order Ext.P14 has been passed without hearing him although in Ext.P4 there was a specific direction that the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The contention of the petitioner is that though he had been heard on two occasions, no order was passed by the Secretary then in office. Later on, the said person got transferred and the order Ext.P14 has been passed by a different person who has not heard the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court reported in Bhattathiripad v. Tahsildar [1994(1)KLT 790] . The petitioner therefore seeks the issue of appropriate orders quashing Ext.P14 and directing his application to be considered afresh.

(2.) ACCORDING to Shri. Dinesh Rao, who appears for the petitioner, Ext.P14 suffers from another defect. The petitioner's application dated 16.08.2008 has been considered in accordance with the provisions amended on 16.12.2009. It is contended that the petitioner's application had been earlier rejected and the same was only being reconsidered pursuant to the direction in Ext.P4 judgment. For the above reasons, it had to be considered in accordance with the provisions of law as it stood before the amendment.

(3.) SINCE the petitioner was heard by one Officer and Ext.P14 has been passed by a different Officer who has not heard the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside for the said reason alone. It has been held by this Court in Bhattathiripad v. Tahsildar [1994 (1) KLT 790] that where a matter is heard by one Officer and order pronounced by another, there is violation of natural justice. T.L.Viswanatha Iyer,J has considered the issue in paragraph 4 of the said judgment which reads as follows:- 4. Even in the first instance, I may state that the order Ext.P7 is void as one passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as it has been passed by an officer who did not hear the revision petition. It is clear from Ext.P7 itself that the hearing was done by the then incumbent in office on 14-8-1991, but the order Ext.P7 was passed by the successor on 17-9-1991. The person who heard the revision on 14-8-1991 has not passed the order, though from what appears in Ext.P7, he had made some notes of hearing in the note file. These notes were utilised by the successor and made into an order which he pronounced as Ext.P7. Admittedly there was no further hearing of the matter. In the circumstances the order passed by a person who did not hear the matter and who did not have any opportunity to come to grips with the issues arising for consideration, is violative of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed on this ground itself.