N A SHERIFFA Vs. KALAMSSERY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. They have certain complaints about certain activities of the private respondents and allege that though initially, a permit was obtained to build a godown, that was later converted to be a marketing outlet and then, there is an attempt to get a licence for housing a service station. It is the contention of the petitioners that without obtaining prior permit, such conversion has actually been done. This litigation cannot be converted to be a suit for a perpetual prohibitory injunction, the place for which is the civil court in terms of the Code of civil Procedure because it would be a suit of civil nature under Section 9 of that Code. All that could be ensured at this point of time is that if the petitioners, as neighbours, are entitled to object to Ext. P21, their objections have to be considered, affording them an opportunity of being heard. The petitioners have placed Ext. P21 objections. Therefore, while taking a final decision on Ext. P21, the competent official respondents will afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and take final decision, after adverting to and considering the objections raised in Ext. P2

(2.) SUCH decision shall state specific reasons since such a decision may be amenable to statutory remedies at the instance of any aggrieved parties before the competent authority. Moreover, persons against whom quasi judicial decisions are taken are entitled to be told the reasons for the decision and such right is part of the fundamental right to freedom of expression and has now been statutorily laid down also in the Right To Information Act. 2. I also record the submission by private respondents that an order has already been issued by the competent authority on Ext. P21, after consideration of Ext. P22. It is clarified that this issue is not being gone into because any question relevant to the legality of that order can only be subjected to challenge before the competent statutory authority. Hence, all such issues are left open.

(3.) FOR the aforesaid reasons, it is directed that a decision on Ext. P21 shall be rendered only after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and by stating reasons thereon. Since there is controversy between the parties as to whether an opportunity of hearing was given on Ext. P21, it is clarified that order, if any, already issued on Ext. P21 would also stand bound by the requirement of rule of hearing as stated in this judgment. All other issues are left open. If the parties are yet to be heard and decision rendered, let that be done within one month from now. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.