The petitioner is the owner of a building that lies within the limits of the first respondent Panchayat. According to the petitioner, in the said building there are several shop rooms bearing Nos.OP-3/715A to OP-715K and those shop rooms are being occupied by the persons to whom they were let out by the petitioner for conducting business. Alleging that the said shop rooms are being used for residential purposes without being used for commercial purposes the third respondent preferred a complaint before the first respondent Panchayat. Earlier, alleging inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 despite the receipt of such a complaint the 3rd respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.8968 of 2013. The petitioner herein was arrayed as third respondent in the said writ petition. That writ petition came to be disposed of at the admission stage itself by Ext.P2 judgment and therefore, the petitioner was not served with notice in the said proceedings. As per Ext.P2 judgment, this Court directed the first respondent therein/the second respondent herein viz., the Secretary of the Panchayat, to consider Exts.P2 and P3 representations, referred as such in that writ petition, and pass appropriate orders thereon within the time stipulated thereunder. Subsequently, Ext.P1 order, the impugned order in this writ petition was passed. As per the same, the petitioner was asked to evict the persons who are residing in the shop rooms and to report the matter within seven days from the date of receipt of Ext.P1. He was further cautioned with coercive steps in case of his failure to take appropriate action in tune with the directions in Ext.P1. The petitioner was asked to show cause, in case he is having any objection for implementing the directions, within 24 hours. It is in the said circumstances that the captioned writ petition has been filed. Essentially, the contention of the petitioner is that such an order was passed without issuing notice to him and without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The time granted as per Ext.P1 is too short to give a proper reply to it. When this matter came up for admission on 16.5.2014 this Court passed an interim order staying all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1. Upon receipt of notice the respondents entered appearance.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
3. After hearing the rival submissions it is evident that prior to the passing of Ext.P1 the petitioner was not put on notice. At the same time, a careful scanning of Ext.P1 would reveal that it is not an order as alleged by the petitioner whilst it is only a notice. Though there is a direction to the petitioner to evict the persons who are residing in the shop rooms as mentioned hereinbefore, the petitioner was also afforded with an opportunity to raise his objections, if any, within 24 hours. Therefore, for all practical purposes Ext.P1 can only be taken as a notice requiring the petitioner to show cause why he should not be compelled to implement the directions therein. At the same time, it is to be noted that the petitioner was not given even a breathing time to give his explanation. He was asked to give his explanation, if any, within a solitary day. The petitioner is perfectly justified in contending that it is too short a period for submitting his explanation. At the same time, it is to be noted that if the petitioner is permitting persons to reside in the shop rooms referred hereinbefore, that certainly is a matter to be looked into. If there is substance in the contention of the petitioner that he has let out those shop rooms for conducting business and on the strength of the permits/licences those persons are conducting business thereon certainly, it is a matter of fact which is to be ascertained by the second respondent before passing orders. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:-
The petitioner herein is granted a week's time to submit his explanation, if any, against Ext.P1. It is open to the petitioner to adduce evidence to show that he had let out the shop rooms in question for commercial purposes and not for residential purposes. Even if the petitioner takes up such a contention the second respondent shall verify whether the shop rooms in question are being used for conducting the permitted business activities or not. If no such business activities are going on and those shop rooms are used for residential purposes certainly, it will be open to the second respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Before taking such action the petitioner and the 3rd respondent shall also be put on notice. A final decision in the matter should be taken with notice to respondents 1 and 3, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of explanation from the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to submit explanation within the stipulated time the respondents will be at liberty to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS