IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4805 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KERALA ELECTRICAL & ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, 7TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (P&A), T. PADMAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-36. 2. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. STATE OF KERALA, HOUSING (A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTECD BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.. SANTHOSH R2 AND R3 BY ADV. SRI. A JAYASANKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.4805 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Government Company and also a tenant under the 2nd respondent. The dispute between the petitioner and their land lord, the 2nd respondent is regarding the quantum of rent that is payable. Against the order passed by the competent authority of the 2nd respondent, invoking the appellate remedy that is available to the petitioner under Section 85 of the Kerala Housing Board Act, 1971 petitioner filed Ext.P1 appeal before the 3rd respondent. In the appeal, Ext.P3 order was issued by the 3rd respondent conveying the decision taken by the 2nd respondent on the claim of the petitioner. Thereafter the first respondent demanded payment of the amount due as per Ext.P4. It was at that stage, the writ petition was filed seeking to quash Exts.P3 and P4 and for a direction to WP(c).No.4805/09 2 dispose the appeal. The case was adjourned with a direction to the Government Pleader to obtain instruction as to whether Ext.P1 appeal filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent is still pending. Today, Government Pleader confirms that Ext.P3 is the order that was passed disposing of the appeal and that no further order has been passed. On hearing the counsel on either side and on reading of Ext.P3 order referred to above, I am satisfied that there has not been a proper consideration of the appeal as required to be done by a quasi judicial authority exercising statutory powers. Ext.P3 order shows that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P1 appeal have been considered by the appellate authority. On the other hand the appellate authority has only intimated the petitioner the response of the board on the claim raised before it. This is not a proper exercise of power. Being an appellate authority, it is for the 3rd respondent to appreciate the respective contentions raised WP(c).No.4805/09 3 and render its decision, which has not been done. Accordingly, Exts.P3 and P4 deserves to be set aside and I do so. The 3rd respondent shall reconsider Ext.P1 appeal filed by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.4805/09 4