IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29175 of 2008(W)
1. M/S.RIVERSIDE PLANTATIONS AND OTHERS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/10/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J
==================
W.P(C)No.29175 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners challenge Ext.P6 notice issued by the 5th
respondent for resumption of certain land which have been
given on lease to petitioners by the 2nd respondent Devaswom,
allegedly as per directions in Ext.P5 judgment. According to
the petitioners, the matter is pending consideration by a Civil
Court in A.S. No. 231/2008 and connected cases, wherein there
is order of stay also and therefore it is not proper on the part of
the 5th respondent to embark upon a parallel enquiry as
proposed in Ext.P6. They further contend that the reliance on
Ext.P5 judgment for issuing Ext.P6 is misplaced in so far as
the petitioners are not parties to that writ petition and there is
no specific direction therein in respect of the property leased
to the petitioners.
2. Whatever be the merits of the contentions of
petitioners, I am of opinion that they have to first raise all
these objections before the 5th respondent pursuant to Ext.P6
notice in so far as Ext.P6 is only a show cause notice. In fact
petitioners have already filed Ext.P6 objections. That being so,
W.P(C)No.29175 of 2008 – 2 –
the 5th respondent is bound to consider all the contentions
raised by the petitioners in accordance with law, before taking
a decision pursuant to Ext.P6.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the 5th respondent to consider the contentions of
the petitioners, after affording an opportunity of being heard
to them and pass final orders within a period on one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the
order is adverse to the petitioners, the petitioners shall not be
dispossessed from the property for a further period of three
weeks from the date of communication of the final order to the
petitioners so as to enable the petitioners to seek appropriate
remedies, against that order.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs