IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15092 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. JOSEPH ISAAC, NEYYARAPPALLIL, CMC 23, CHERTHALA. 2. THANKAMMA ISAAC, NEYYARAPPALLIL, CMC 23, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. MR.JOBY CYRIAC. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, DISTRICT URBAN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, DISTRICT PLANNING UNIT, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. MATHEW VADAKKEL, R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. J. OMPRAKASH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.15092 of 2009-F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Adv.Sri.Om Prakash appears for respondents 1 and 2. Learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 3 and 4. 2.The petitioners applied for a building permit. The first respondent Secretary of the Municipality did not take action in time. Since orders were not forthcoming, petitioners moved the council and then, filed the writ petition on which Ext.P2 judgment was issued. Now the council has issued Ext.P3 communication stating that the application for permit is not in terms of the DTP Scheme. While Ext.P3 communication does not even make reference to any particular scheme, the petitioners state that there is no scheme at all. Therefore, it is quite clear that Ext.P3 is a vague communication and does not contain the WP(C)15092/09 -: 2 :- information that is required for a citizen to understand as to why a decision has been taken against him. This is clearly illegal and infracts Article 14 of the Constitution of India, apart from Section 4(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which enjoins that every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Ext.P3 is quashed and it is directed the the second respondent shall take up the request of the petitioner, provide him an opportunity of being heard and decide the same and state specific reasons with reference to any material that may be adverse to the request of the petitioners. Let the needful be done within one month from now. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, Sha/050609 JUDGE.