IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2007 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1929 WP(C).No. 33265 of 2005(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- CHACKO THOMAS, VATTUKKULAM, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHERTHALA. 3. SECRETARY, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHERTHALA. 4. CYRIL BRITTO, POMPOZHIYIL, C.M.C.3, CHERTHALA. BY SRI.J.OM PRAKASH SC, BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).33265/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.31522/03 -C DT. 9.1.04 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.33500/04-K DT. 14.1.05 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.PH 3447/2000 DT. 27.3.05 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL NO.150/05 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 25.5.05. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE OF EXT.P4 APPEAL ISSUED IN FORM E BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 1.7.6.05. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NI.156/05 DT. 23.9.05. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXT.R2(a):- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 8.11.05. EXT.R2(b):- COPY OF THE A.D. CARD OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DT. 14.11.05. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.33265 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 11th December, 2007 JUDGMENT It is submitted on behalf of counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the Cherthala Municipality that as a matter of fact the Municipality had produced the original files of the Municipality along with the original of Ext.P7 before the Tribunal. But it was without noticing the original of the file and the original of Ext.P7 that the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Municipal Council. It is submitted by both sides that the original file and the original of Ext.P7 were before the Tribunal when the Tribunal passed the impugned order. I quash Ext.P8 and direct the 1st respondent-Tribunal to pass fresh orders on merits, on Ext.P4 appeal within six weeks of receiving copy of the judgment. The Municipality is directed to produce the original file containing the original of Ext.P7 before the Tribunal within two weeks of receiving copy of the judgment so as to enable the Tribunal to comply with the above direction. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. It is needless to mention that Ext.P4 shall be disposed of after issuing notice to all the parties and after hearing them. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE W.P.C.No. - 2 -