IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10554 of 2008(F) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SHAJI PHILIP, PANDIYAPPILLIL, PALLIKKATHODU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. PALLIKKATHODU GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PANCHAYAT OFFICE, ANIKKADU.P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, PALLIKKATHODU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ANIKADU.P.O., KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAM KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 10554/08 1 PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.C. No 10554 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st April 2008 JUDGMENT What is under challenge in this writ petition is Ext P12 order issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. 2. Sri K.T. Shyamkumar, Standing Counsel for the Panchayat, entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and pointed out that Ext.P12 order is appealable to the Committee of the Panchayat in terms of the Panchayat Raj Act. Sri Purushothama Kaimal, counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext Ext P12 order has been issued by the Secretary in gross violation of the direction contained in Ext P11 judgment which specifically directed the Secretary to hear the petitioner and then only pass orders. Counsel for the Panchayat submitted that he has been instructed by the Secretary in writing to report that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing and it is after hearing him and after considering his statement which was filed by the petitioner that the impugned order was passed. Even though there is nothing in Ext P12 to indicate that the WPC 10554/08 2 instruction given by the Secretary to the Standing Counsel is correct, I am of the view that no prejudice will be caused if he is relegated to the Panchayat Committee for preferring an appeal under the statute. Therefore I dispose of the writ petition directing the Committee of the first respondent to entertain the appeal to be preferred by the petitioner against Ext P12 within two weeks from today, hear the petitioner and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three weeks of the petitioner filing the appeal. If the decision in the appeal comes in favour of the petitioner the Committee shall ensure that the second respondent issues licence in terms of the said decision without fail. The interim order issued by this court will continue for one month from today. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE Judge 01/04/2008 en WPC 10554/08 3 Appendix Petitioner's exhibits: Ext.P1 - True copy of site plan of the piggery unit of the petitioner dated nil Ext P2 - True copy of government publication dated 27.5.2007 Ext.P3 - True copy of certificate issued by the Malanad Development Society dated 19.4.2004 Ext.P4 - True copy of order issued by the Panchayat dated 9.9.2004 Ext.P5 - True copy of letter by the petitioner dated 30.1.2007 Ext.P6 - True copy of notice published by Panchayat dated 4.5.2007 Ext.P7 - True copy of notice published by Panchayat dated 4.5.2007 Ext.P8 - True copy of application submitted by the petitioner to the Panchayat dated 6.6.2007 Ext.P9 - True copy of rejection order issued by the second respondent dated 23.5.2007 Ext.P10- - True copy of the order issued by the Panchayat Committee dated 10.10.2007 Ext.P11 - True copy of the judgment in WP 31234/07 of the High Court of Kerala dt 19.11.2007 Ext. P12 - True copy of order issued by the second respondent dated 24.3.2008. [true copy]