IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1083 of 2009(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------------- SOSAMMA, W/O.CHACKO, AZHAKATHU MANNIL HOUSE,PURAMATTOMM.P.O. THIRUVALLA-VIA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.T.K.BIJU RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE THAHSILDAR, MALLAPPALLI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PURAMATTOM VILLAGE THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY SMT. SUDHADEVI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 1083 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that she had applied for a building permit to the Puramattom Grama Panchayat Authorities, and thereupon the panchayath had insisted her to produce a certificate to the effect that neither the land is wet land nor it is a paddy field. According to the petitioner thereupon, he has submitted Exhibit P4 application to the 3rd respondent, who by Exhibit P4(a) forwarded his report to the second respondent recommending the issuance of the certificate as sought for by the panchayath. It is stated that second respondent also by Exhibit P5 recommended the matter to the first respondent. Despite the same first respondent rejected the application by Exhibit P6. It is challenging Exhibit P6, this writ petition has been filed. A reading of Exhibit P6 shows that no reason whatever has been stated justifying the rejection of the application made by the petitioner. Although it is open to the first respondent to take a decision applying the discretion that he has, but if the application to be rejected, reasons W.P.(C) No. 1083/2009 2 should be assigned. This having not been done in Exhibit P6 and it deserves to be set aside and I do so. First respondent is directed to reconsider the proceedings and pass orders thereof. This shall be done expeditiously as possible at any rate within four weeks of production of copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm