IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 876 of 2010(H) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.ABDUL SALAM, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.SHRI KASIM BAWA, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, KOCHI, RESIDING AT SAL SABEEL HOUSE, NO.13/370 K.C.ROAD JUNCTION, CHULLICKAL, KOCHI-682005. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.876 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Zonal Ofice of the Corporation of Cochin. While the petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer in Kalpetta Municipality, he was issued with a show cause notice dated 4.3.2001 in connection with the digging of well at Kurunthana Colony. It culminated in Ext.P1 order whereby he was imposed with the penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. It was also ordered to recover a sum of Rs.3619.50 from the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 27.7.2007, before the first respondent, as is evident from Ext.P2. The grievance of the petitioner is that it is gathering dust. Ext.P3 would show that Ext.P2 was forwarded to the first respondent by the Secretary, Thodupuzha Municipality on 30.7.2001. When a statutory appeal is preferred before an authority, that authority is bound by duty to dispose of it within a reasonable time. There is no justification at all for not considering Ext.P2 appeal and pass orders thereon, in accordance with law. Disuse of power is no doubt, equally contemptuous as abuse or W.P.(C) NO.876 of 2010 2 misuse of power. Considering the long lapse of time in the matter of consideration of Ext.P2 appeal, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal and pass orders thereon expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the first respondent to comply with the aforesaid direction, the petitioner shall forward a copy of Ext.P2 appeal along with the copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.876 of 2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. CRL. M.C. NO. O R D E R 3rd June, 2009