Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE22D DAY OF MAY20141ST JYAISHTA, 1936 WP(C).No. 29230 of 2013 (C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.S.SHANIL, S/O.K.V.SANKARAN, KUNHIKULATH HOUSE, CHAKKARAPPADAM P.O, PERINJANAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, LAKSHADWEEP OFFICE, W/ISLAND, KOCHI - 3.
2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, AGATTI, 682 553.
3. MYSHA.K, S/O.ABDULLAKOYA, KOODAM HOUSE, AGATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP,PIN682553. R1 & R2 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, S.C THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2205-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. WP(C).No. 29230 of 2013 (C) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE1T RESPONDENT DATED1806.2013. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT DATED1007.2013. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE1T RESPONDENT DATED2408.2013. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE1T RESPONDENT DATED0210.2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE. Msd. A.M. Shaffique, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 29230 of 2013 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 22nd day of May, 2014.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext. P2 order issued by the 2nd respondent alleging that the same had been issued without complying with the principles of natural justice.
2. A perusal of Ext. P2 indicates that it is a communication issued by the Deputy Collector, Agatti, to the Administrative Officer, Lakshadweep Office, indicating that a complaint was received from Koodam Mysha against the petitioner alleging breach of contract, cheating, fraud etc. It is also indicated that the petitioner had obtained permit without the knowledge of the sponsor. In Ext. P2 request is made to refuse permit to the petitioner to Agatti, if he approaches for fresh entry permi changing his earlier sponsor to some other person as his character and dealings with local public as well as his sponsor were not satisfactory, as reported by the Station House Officer, Agatti. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations stated in Ext. P2 are absolutely wrong. The factual situation is that the complainant in Ext. P2 owes certain amounts to the petitioner and he has given Exts. P3 and P4 which are not considered..
3. Learned standing counsel for the respondent would submit that Ext. P2 does not amount to cancellation -:
2. :- of permit whereas it is only a request made by the Deputy Collector to the Administrative Officer indicating receipt of a complaint from a local person.
4. According to the petitioner, he was having a valid permit for entering Agatti till November, 2013 and in view of Ext. P2 even if he applies for permit to Agatti, the same will not be considered properly.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the provisions of Laccadive Minicoy Island (Restriction on Entry and Residence) Rules, 1967, in order to indicate that for refusing permit, proper enquiry has to be conducted by the authorities concerned and Ext. P2 is totally against the provisions of above said Rule.
6. A perusal of Ext. P2 does not indicate that it is an order withdrawing permit granted to the petitioner. At any rate, even according to the petitioner, his right to have entry to Agatti has expired and he has to file a fresh application. In the result, there is no reason to interfere with Ext. P2 as it is not an order passed in terms of any rules framed under the aforesaid rules. It is only a request by the Deputy Collector to the Administrative Officer.
7. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of as under: -:
3. :- The petitioner is entitled to submit a fresh application to the 1st respondent, which shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance especially regarding the averments made in the complaint filed by the complainant as reflected in Ext. P2. He can also rely upon Exts. P3 and P4 for ventilating his grievance in the matter. Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge. Tds/