IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37334 of 2009(J)
1. T.J.PHILOMINA, ETTIRUTHIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. E.R.JOHN BOSCO, -DO-, -DO-.
3. MINI JOHN, -DO-.
4. MARY GERTRUDE, -DO-.
5. E.R.PAULSON, -DO-.
6. ANN JENNY, -DO-.
7. HIMA TONY, -DO-.
8. VIN JOHN, -DO-.
Vs
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :01/03/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.37334/2009-J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners
aggrieved by Ext.P7 order passed by the first respondent.
It is mainly contended that the order is passed without
hearing the petitioners.
2. As per Ext.P7 order, it was held by the Government
that the petitioners’ land is most suitable for the
requirement of the Kochi Metro Rail Project and the vacant
plots suggested by the petitioners are not suitable for the
same.
3. Ext.P3 herein is the representation considered by
the Government in Ext.P7. Mainly, the objection raised in
Ext.P3 is with regard to the acquisition of their property
for the purpose of Metro Rail Project as they have
established various industries spending more than Rs.5
Crores. By Ext.P4 Judgment this Court directed the
respondent to hear the petitioners and pass orders on
Ext.P3 representation. Subsequently, a notice was issued,
as per Ext.P5, proposing a hearing to be held on
19/10/2009. On the previous day, they submitted Ext.P6
request to defer the hearing scheduled on 19/10/2009
pending a decision on the report of the District Collector,
W.P.(C). No.37334/2009
-:2:-
Ernakulam, called for by the Industries Department. There
is no mentioning in Ext.P7 about the receipt of Ext.P6
representation. It is stated by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that it was directly submitted to the
Department itself.
4. What is sought for by the petitioners is for a
fresh hearing in respect of the facts pointed out in
Ext.P6. The suggestion made in Ext.P6 before the
Industries Department is to shift the location of the
Dumping Yard from their place to another waste land lying
next to their property, so that the Industry that is being
conducted in their property could be saved and to protect
the employment of 300 workers employed there. It is also
submitted that no hearing has been conducted in the matter
also.
5. I am of the view that the petitioners can be given
an opportunity of hearing, especially in the light of
Ext.P4 Judgment. Therefore, Ext.P7 is quashed. There will
be a direction to the respondent to dispose of the matter
after hearing the petitioners within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms