IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4969 of 2009(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.J.JOHNSON, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, MANICKAL HOUSE, ARAKKULAM PO, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE) SECRETARAIT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI DISTRICT , IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4969 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Referring to Ext.P1, the petitioner submits that his son is suffering from renal failure and needs kidney transplantation. According to the petitioner, as he was short of resources to meet the expenditure in connection with his son's treatment, he made Exts.P2 application to the 2nd respondent seeking permission as contemplated under Section 4 of the Kerala Reconstruction of Transfer by and Restoration of Lands of Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999. Ext.P3 is the report that was made by the Tahsildar, recommending the application of the petitioner. Orders were not passed on Ext.P2, and therefore, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation to the 1st respondent. Thereafter by Ext.P6 order, the 2nd respondent has rejected the application made by the petitioner for the reason that the judgment of this Court in OP No.25322/1999 rendered on 24/08/2000 is pending consideration of the Apex Court. 2. In my view, there is absolutely no justification in the view that has been taken by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P6. As already WP(C) No.4969/2009 -2- noticed, it was in view of the provisions contained under the Act referred to above, that the petitioner has made Ext.P4 application for the previous consent of the 2nd respondent. The judgment referred to above, which according to the learned Government Pleader, has relevance in so far as the power under Section 5,6 & 22 are concerned, can have no relevance when an application is made under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the reasoning in Ext.P6 cannot be approved and for that reason Ext.P6 will stand quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass orders on Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner examining the genuineness of the reason assigned as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 3. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg