IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17779 of 2011(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P. APPUKUTTAN ACHARI NADAYIL VADAKKETHIL, MULANKATAKAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER, SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. MR.M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 17779 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MEMO DATED NIL. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/07/2010 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TP/SZ/3682/2010 DATED 23/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/08/2010 IN WP(C) NO. 25456/2010. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.SZ/TP/3682/10 DATED 26/04/2011 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 17779 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is a heptagenarian filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P3, P4 and P6. Earlier, the respondents have issued Ext.P3 notice under Section 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act carrying a provisional order requiring the petitioner to demolish the alleged unauthorised construction and the same was challenged before this Court by filing WPC No.25456/2010. After considering the rival contentions this court disposed of the said writ petition as per Ext.P5 judgment. The Secretary of the Corporation was directed to take a decision after hearing the petitioner and after considering the materials produced by the petitioner before him. Subsequently, Ext.P6 order dated 26.4.2011 was passed by the first respondent virtually, confirming the provisional order in Ext.P3. It is challenging said orders that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the WPC.No.17779/2011 : 2 : respondent. It was taking into consideration the fact that after receipt of Ext.P6, referred as such thereunder, the petitioner had filed an objection thereon and the respondent was yet to finalise the proceedings in terms of section 406(3) of the Act that this Court directed the Secretary to take a decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and also for considering the materials produced by the petitioner. Ext.P6 is the order issued in purported compliance with the directions in Ext.P5. There can be no doubt that even the absence of direction by this Court,an authority while finalising the proceedings under Section 406(3) of the Act is duty bound to apply its mind while passing an order by exercising the power vested with the said authority. Application of mind can be reflected only through the reasons. Such an application is all the more required in the light of Ext.P5. However, a scanning of Ext.P6 would reveal that no reason whatsoever has been assigned for rejecting the request and claim of the petitioner rather, for affirming the earlier order. In the said circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the order in question was passed without any application WPC.No.17779/2011 : 3 : of mind as such it invites interference. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is set aside. Consequently, the respondent is directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioner as per Ext.P5 objection referred as such in Ext.P5 judgment and to finalise the proceedings in terms of the provisions under section 406(3) of the Act after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. Till such time, no coercive steps including demolition of the building in question shall be initiated. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma //true copy// P.A to Judge