IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4278 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.SANKARANKUTTY, JOINT SECRETARY(RETIRED KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD RESIDING AT KAITHAVANATHARA, THAZAHVA PO KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KHADI BHAVAN, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER, THE KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 4278 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board on 31.5.1995. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to the penal interest on all the amounts due to him with effect from the date stipulated in Ext.P1. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this court as evident from Exts.P1 and P6. As per Ext.P6, the first respondent was directed to afford an opportunity to hear and take final decision after considering his contentions and materials produced by him. After Ext.P6 judgment Ext.P7 order was passed by the first respondent. Considering the fact that this court as per Ext.P6 directed the first respondent to consider and pass orders, the first respondent was bound to consider and pass a reasoned order in the matter, it is contended. 2. A perusal of Ext.P7 would reveal that it did not contain any reason. Application of mind can be reflected only WPC.4278 of 2010 : 2 : through reasons. In that view of the matter Ext.P7 can be construed only as an order passed with a closed mind. Therefore I am inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to re-consider the claims of the petitioner in terms of the direction in Ext.P6 Judgment and pass reasoned orders thereon expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma