The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram directing the petitioner to cut and remove a coconut tree standing in her property. The allegation on the basis of which the 1st respondent has passed the order was that, the tree was standing in a dangerous condition. The complaint was filed by the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent was the 2nd respondent in the said proceedings. The petitioner was not a party before the Ombudsman. The main allegation of the petitioner is that, Ext.P5 has been passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the her. The petitioner was not even made a party to the said proceedings.
2. Adv.Sri.M.K.Aboobacker appears for the 2nd respondent. In the nature of the relief that I propose to grant, I do not consider it necessary to issue notice to the other respondents in this case.
3. A perusal of Ext.P5 shows that, the petitioner was not a party to Complaint No.441/13 or C.M.P No.115/14 on which the 1st respondent has passed the said order. According to the petitioner, it is her tree that has been directed to be cut and removed. Therefore, it was necessary that she was afforded an opportunity of being heard before the order was passed. I am satisfied that Ext.P5 order in so far W.P.(C) No.32775 of 2014 2 as it has not granted an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard is unsustainable as violative of the principles of Natural Justice.
In view of the above, Ext.P5 is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter, after directing the complainant before the said authority to make the petitioner also a party to the said proceedings.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV