IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 27770 of 2005(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. JOSEPH, S/O. MATHAI, ALAPPATTU (NELLIKATTU) HOUSE, NADUKANDAM, P.O. KOLANI, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. PUNNOSE, S/O. MATHAI, ALAPPATTU (NELLIKATTU) HOUSE, THATTARATHATTA, P.O. THATTARATHATTA, KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. MATHEW, S/O. CHACKO, ALAPPATTU (NELLIKATTU) HOUSE, THATTARATHATTA, P.O. THATTARATHATTA, KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVT. (E) DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA FOR R1 BY ADVS.MR.V.M.KURIAN FOR R2 MR.A.V.THOMAS FOR R2 MR.MATHEW B. KURIAN FOR R2 MR.K.T.THOMAS FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.27770/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 (SERIES):- COPIES OF THE TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE THODUPUZHA VILLAGE OFFICE. P2:- COPY OF THE DECREE DT. 23.8.01 IN OS. 254/99 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA. P3:- COPY OF THE INVOICE DT. 15.7.69. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 19.9.98 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 5.8.99 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 31.8.99 IN OP. NO. 22099/99 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P7:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 27.1.03 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 14.6.05 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 10.8.05 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 27770 OF 2005 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners and one Shaji applied to the Government for regularisation of a building, which is otherwise described by the authorities as an unauthorised construction. The petitioners were to be heard on 4.12.2002. They were heard by Smt. K.P.Sreedevi, the Joint Secretary to Government on that day. Thereafter, Smt.Sosamma Varghese is stated to have heard the petitioners again on 5.2.2003. However, on 14.6.2005, the impugned Ext.P8 is rendered on facts, by yet another officer. That does not even refer to the personal hearings and matters that arose for consideration on the basis of oral submissions. Obviously, a decision on such an application is not purely a technical matter and requires the consideration of the different submissions made at hearing. Therefore the decision on the application for regularisation ought to have been rendered by the officer, who heard the parties. With the passage of time, it is practically impossible to direct the decision being rendered by the WP(C) 27770/2005 2 officer who heard the petitioners. Accordingly, impugned Ext.P8 and the consequential decisions thereon are quashed and Government are directed to reschedule the hearing of the petition dealt with in Ext.P8 and a decision de novo shall be rendered by the officer who heard the parties. Writ petition allowed accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/10/6