IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31874 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ROY THOMAS, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.ALLIED TIMBERS, S.H.MOUNT P.O., PERUMBAIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-686 006. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN SMT.LEENA MURALI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KUMARANELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUMARANELLOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 016. 2. THE SECRETARY, KUMARANELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUMARANELLOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 016. 3. SHYNI PHILIP, 'CHALAMADOM' HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., NATTASSERI KARA, PERUMBAIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-686 006. 4. THE PRESIDENT, KUMARANELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUMARANELLOOR, KOTTAYAM- 686 016. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R3 SRI.AJEESH K.SASI FOR R3 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1 & 2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31874/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AMENDED PARTNERSHIP DEED DT 27.1.1992. EXT.P2: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 29.12.1962 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT TO M/S.ALLIED TIMBERS FOR THE RECEIPT OF LICENCE FEE FOR THE PERIOD 1962-63. EXT.P2(a): THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DT 13.2.1963 ISSUED BY THE SALES TAX OFFICE, KOTTAYAM TO M/S.ALLIED TIMBERS. EXT.P3: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 28.3.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT TO M/S.ALLIED TIMBERS FOR THE RECEIPT OF LICENCE FEE FOR THE PERIOD 2006-2007. EXT.P4: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 27.2.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT TO M/S.ALLIED TIMBERS FOR THE RECEIPT OF LICENCE FEE FOR THE PERIOD 2007-2008. EXT.P5: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 27.3.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT 17.4.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT 13.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.526/2008 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P9: THE PHOTOCOPY OF the LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 2.4.2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.4011/2009. EXT.P11: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 3.4.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1 1691/2008 DT 9.6.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: THE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(P) NO.219/2008/LSGD DT 4.8.2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. WPC NO.31874/09 -2- EXT.P14: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 28.8.2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT INWPC NO.25137/2009. EXT.P15: THE PHOTOCOPY OF the ORDER NO.A1 1691/2008 DT 21.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P16: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DT 31.10.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT. EXT.P17: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHEET IN EXT.P16 APPEAL PREFERRED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT. EXT.P18: THE PHOTOCOPY OF the APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY M/S ALLIED TIMBERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDNET PANCHAYAT. EXT.P19: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECIEPT NO.A1-6624/09 DT 4.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF the RECEIPT OF EXT.P18 APPEAL. EXT.P20: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.A1 6625 DT 4.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RECEIPT THE STAY PETITION. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31874 OF 2009 (D) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of a saw mill which has been established in the premises belonging to the 3rd respondent landlord. When the petitioner sought renewal of the licence, the 2nd respondent rejected the application by Ext.P15 order. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed Ext.P18 appeal to the 1st respondent. While the appeal was pending, he apprehended coercive action based on Ext.P15 and it was therefore that the writ petition was filed. Taking into account the pendency of the appeal, this Court also passed interim order suspending the operation of Ext.P15. 2. The 3rd respondent, who is also a member of the 1st respondent Panchayat, now informs that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been disposed of. Counsel for the 3rd respondent and also the petitioner submits that disposal of the appeal reported by the counsel for the 3rd respondent was without notice to either of them. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner has not so far been served any order disposing of his WPC 31874/09 :2 : appeal. 3. If as stated by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, the appeal was disposed of in the manner as they say, certainly that order cannot be sustained as it was passed in violation of the basic rules of natural justice. Therefore, the 1st respondent Panchayat has to reconsider Ext.P18 appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P15, with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and pass fresh orders in the matter. This the Panchayat shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. It is directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P15 will be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that the 3rd respondent, being a member of the Panchayat, her representative alone will be heard by the 1st respondent and that the 3rd respondent will not be allowed to participate in the deliberations on the appeal. 5. It is made clear that the contentions of both sides are left open. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp