IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24660 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SAUDABI, W/O.ABDULKHADER, BENDICHAL HOUSE,BENDICHAL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHERKALA, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 541. 2. MARIYUMBI, W/O.KOVVAL AHMED HAJI, THEKKIL P.O.,CHATTANCHAL, PIN-671 541, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 3. SUMAYYA, 2ND WIFE OF KOVVAL AHMED HAJI, DO-DO- 4. ABDUL AZIZ, S/O.KOVVAL AHMED HAJI, -DO-DO- 5. SAHID, S/O.MOIDEENKUNJU MUSALIAR, MASINA MANZIL,KAHANGAD P.O.,PIN-671 315, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 BY SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.24660 of 2010-F ---------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The grievance involved in the present Writ Petition relates to the cause of action projected earlier in W.P(C) No.17631 of 2010. As per Ext.P4 judgment in the said Writ Petition, the impugned order (Ext.P6) was set aside and the Deputy Chief Engineer, before whom the objections were preferred by the petitioner against provisional bill, was directed to forward the same to the first respondent herein and the latter was directed to consider and finalise the same after hearing the petitioner within the specified time, simultaneously intercepting the coercive proceedings till such time. Pursuant to Ext.P4 verdict, the first respondent passed Ext.P5 order declining interference and confirming the provisional bill, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that absolutely no reason has been stated in Ext.P5, but for the observation as noted below: “The contentions made by him during the hearing are not maintainable either in law or on facts and having no sustainability. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred on the under signed as assessing officer, it is hereby ordered to uphold the provisional assessment making it absolute in all respects.” W.P(C) No.24660 of 2010-F 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the said observation is not at all a ‘speaking order’ and none of the objections raised by the petitioner has been specifically adverted to, while passing Ext.P5; which hence is liable to be intercepted by this Court. 3. Heard the learned standing counsel as well. 4. Going by the contents of Ext.P5, this Court held that it is not liable to be termed as a ‘speaking order’, more so in view of the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in Mayer Simon V. Advocate General , Kerala & others (1975 KLT 78). Accordingly, Ext.P5 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass a ‘speaking order’ after hearing the petitioner with specific reference to the grounds raised by the petitioner. The proceedings as above shall be finalised forthwith, at any rate within ‘one month’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that all further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge