IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30624 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SUGUNAN,VADAKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KALAMACHAL P.O, VAMANAPURAM ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SMT.B.BINDU SMT.N.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 3. GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 4. THAHASILDAR, NEDUMANGADU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-695 042 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, NELLANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 132 R1 TO R5 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.30624/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NEUROSURGERY OF SCT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30/5/2011. P2 COPY OF THE REPORT OF MRI SCANS P3 COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 24/4/2007. P4 COPY OF THE LETTER ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION DATED 6/3/2007. P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/6/2007. P6 COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22/10/2007. P7 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30/4/2007. P8 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17/4/2007 SUBMITTED BY 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE LOCATION SKETCH P9 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/5/2008 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/6/2008. P11 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/7/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).30624/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a physically handicapped person. According to the petitioner, he made Ext.P4 application to the second respondent for a dealers' licence for retail sale of sand stocked by him. After considering the application, the second respondent has issued Ext.P9 order, informing the petitioner that the application is rejected. It is challenging this order, the writ petition is filed. 2. The order does not contain the reasons for rejection of the application. Since it discloses total non application of mind, for that reason itself, the order deserves to be set aside. 3. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P9 order and direct the second respondent to re-consider the application made by the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs