Kerala High Court
Kannamthanam vs The Assistant ... on 31 May, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 33969 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:
KANNAMTHANAM & CO.
MALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RESPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI.MANESH THOMAS.
BY ADV SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-III(ASSESSMENT),
SPECIAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.. ARUN AJAY SHANKAR (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 33969 OF 2016 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is operating a metal crusher unit. It has
approached this Court, being aggrieved by the fact that Exts.P3
and P4 notices have been issued to it , proposing to reopen the
compounding granted for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11, on the
premise that certain additional machinery have been installed by
the petitioner.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that though the petitioner had received consent
from the Pollution Control Board for installation of additional
machinery, said additional machinery have not been so installed
and therefore, Exts.P3 and P4 notices are clearly without
jurisdiction and though the petitioner filed objections to the
notices issued to him by Exts.P9 and P10 orders, the amount
payable under the compounding Scheme was refixed, imposing
further liability on the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel further
submits that, Exts.P9 and P10 order were issued without giving
him sufficient opportunity of being heard.
3. Learned Government Pleader would submit that, it is for
the petitioner to establish before the authorities that there was no
enhancement of the capacity of the machines or any any mis-
declaration regarding the number/capacity of machinery after
availing the compounding facility. It is submitted that,
compounding facility in respect of the metal crushers is on the
basis of the capacity /specification of the machinery employed in
the metal crusher unit and any change in the specification will,
therefore, result in the compounding being re-visited by the
competent authority. He submits that, the contention taken on
behalf of the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was given
to the petitioner is incorrect. He refers to paragraph No.5 and 6
of the counter affidavit dated 13.12.2016 in support of his
contention.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, in
reply, would submit that though there is an averment in the
counter affidavit that proper opportunity of hearing had been
given to the petitioner, the impugned orders re-fixing the amount
to be paid under the compounding Scheme do not indicate that
any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It is
submitted that the impugned orders proceed only on the basis
that the petitioner had obtained consent to operate from the
Pollution Control Board.
5. Having heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
opinion that Exts.P9 and P10 orders can be set aside on the short
ground that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of
hearing before those orders were issued. Though the counter
affidavit in this case indicates that an opportunity of hearing was
given to the petitioner, Exts.P9 and P10, which are the orders in
question, refers to the objection filed by the petitioner where it is
noted that the petitioner had specifically requested for a personal
hearing. However, in that part of Exts.P9 and P10 orders where
the officer has considered the objections raised by the petitioner,
the officer had not referred to any personal hearing conducted or
to any contention taken at the time of such personal hearing, if
such personal hearing was, in fact, given. Therefore, I am
constrained to conclude that Exts.P9 and P10 orders are issued in
violation of principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, Exts.P9 and P10 orders are quashed. The
matter is remitted to the file of the Competent Authority, who
shall pass fresh orders in the matter, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Competent Authority
shall endeavour to pass fresh orders, as early as possible and at
any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ajt
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33969/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPONDING PERMISSION FOR
THE YEAR 2009-2010 DATED 30.6.2009 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPOUNDING PERMISSION FOR
THE YEAR 2010-2011 DATED 30.6.2010 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.9.2015 FOR
THE YEAR 2009-2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.9.2015 FOR
THE YEAR 2010-2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.9.2015 SERVED
ON THE RESPONDENT ON 30.9.2015 FOR THE YEAR
2009-2010.
P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.9.205 SERVED
ON THERESPONDENT ON 30.9.2015 FOR THE YEAR
2010-2011.
P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIE FOR PERSONAL HEARING
DATED 03.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ORDER FROM KSPCB,
THIRUVANANBTHAPURAM REFERRED TO BY THE
RESPONDENT BEARING REFERENCE NO.
PCB/TVM-DO/ICO(R)/CRU/400/2009.
P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
24.9.2016 FOR THE YEAR 2009-2010 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
24.9.2016 FOR THE EYAR 2010-2011 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
