IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18231 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAFI.P.L, S/O.LONAPPAN, PERINCHERRI HOUSE, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR. 2. THRISSUR CORPORATION COUNCIL, REP.BY ITS ,MAYOR, THRISSUR CORPORATION. 3. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION,. 4. HEALTH OFFICER, THRISSUR CORPORATION. 5. C.V.JOSE, S/O.VAREETH, CHITTALAPILLY MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.18231 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner faced a notice of the Health Officer, requiring him to close down a unit where manufacturing process is being carried out. He filed an appeal against that decision. That appeal has to be decided by the Council. Though the appellate decision was rendered by the Council, the petitioner was heard by the Health Supervisor who is not a member of the Council. The quality of an appeal of the nature in hand was one that does not provide for an institutional mechanism by which any person other than the appellate authority could have heard the appellant and the decision being ultimately rendered by the statutory authority. The Council or the appellate committee in terms of the Act, if any, ought to have heard the appeal since various considerations which would not be merely technical would go into the ultimate decision making process. For that short reason and without expressing anything on merits, this writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned appellate WPC.18231/09 Page numbers decision and directing that the appeal of the petitioner shall be considered by the competent authority hearing the petitioner. Let a final decision follow within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.28/7.