IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4869 of 2009(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ NOUSHAD ALI KOTTA, S/O. MODEEN, AGED 30 YEARS, OTTAKKANJIRAHINGAL HOUSE, P.O.KUZHIMANNA, CHAKKUMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.A.MUHAMMED, MR.M.SAJJAD. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KUZHIMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA R2 BY ADV. MR.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.4869/2009 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD. 29/11/2006. P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 26/12/2006. P3: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT DTD. 01/02/2007. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DTD. 06/06/2007. P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A3-284/07 OF THE PANCHAYATH DTD. 22/10/2007. P6: COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 19/11/2007. P7: COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR DTD. 02/07/2008. P8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A2-129/09 OF THE PANCHAYATH DTD. NIL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 4869 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges the issuance of Ext.P5, calling upon him to demolish a construction made by him. Ext.P5 is issued by a panchayat Secretary, which contains the omnibus statement that Assistant Engineer has reported that the construction is in violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, for short, KMBR. The KMBR contains a bundle of rules. No specific violation of any particular rule is pointed out in Ext.P5. It is one of the fundamentals of administrative law that when a person is notified of a wrong done by him which requires him to be proceeded with penal consequences, he should be told the specific reason for such action. These inbuilt provisions in Article 14 of the Constitution have, with the passage of time, found expressive even under the Right to Information Act where any administrative decision adverse to any individual should reflect the reasons for making of such decision. Short of that, exercise of administrative power would be nothing but perversity. Ext.P5 is Wpc 4869/2009 2 a cryptic order which does not reflect any reason, whatsoever as discernible in law. For that short reason, Ext.P5 is quashed and it is directed that the application of the petitioner for completion certificate and numbering of the building constructed by him shall be considered in accordance with law. If the Secretary concludes that it is in violation of the laws, he will be at liberty to issue orders specifically stating the ground of such a view since the petitioner would then be able to work out his remedies before the statutory authorities in accordance with law. Let the needful be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All other issues left open. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/27/6