IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 32755 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHANGANACHERRY METAL AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO. IND (K) 71, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O., CHANGANASSERRY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH VAZHAPPALLY PO., CHANGANACHERRY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. SECRETARY, VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH VAZHAPPALLY PO., CHANGANACHERRY. 4. PRESIDENT, VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH VAZHAPPALLY PO., CHANGANACHERR ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB FOR R2 & R3 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, A/W. W.P.C.NO. 35936/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 32755/2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 1-6-1961. EXT.P2 NOTICE DT. 6-8-1962. EXT.P3 LETTER DT. 8-5-2006. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 19-2-1994. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 31-5-2007. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 27-11-2007. EXT.P7 APPLICATION DT. 25-2-2006. EXT.P8 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 36713/2007. EXT.P9 LETTER DT. 17-12-2007. EXT.P10 LETTER DT. 31-12-2007. EXT.P11 ORDER DT. 26-12-2007. EXT.P12 ORDER DT. 29-12-2007. EXT.P13 ORDER DT. 7-1-2008 IN W.P.C.NO. 62/2008. EXT.P14 NOTICE DT. 29-12-2007. EXT,P15 ORDER DT. 9-1-2008 EXT.P16 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 1706/2008. EXT.P17 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 62/2008. EXT.P18 RECEIPT DT. 18-2-2008. EXT.P19 RECEIPT DT. 18-2-2008. EXT.P20 RECEIPT DT. 18-2-2008. EXT.P21 RECEIPT DT. 18-2-2008. EXT.P22 LETTER DT. 11-3-2008 EXT.P22(a) LETTER DT. 11-3-2008. EXT.P22(b) DO. DO. EXT.P22(c) DO. DO. EXT.P23 ORDERDT. 17-4-2008. EXT.P24 ORDER DT. 18-4-2008. EXT.P25 ORDER DT. 18-4-2008. EXT.P26 DO. DO. EXT.P27 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 13411/2008. EXT.P28 PETITION I.A.NO. 1207/2008 FILED BY PETITIONER DT. 1-11-2008 IN APPEAL NO. 610/2008.. EXT.P29 I.A.NO. 1208/2008 FILED BY PETITIONER DT. 1-11-2008 IN APPEAL NO. 611/2008. EXT.P30 I.A.NO. 1209/2008 DT. 1-11-2008 IN APPEAL NO. 612/2008. EXT.P31 I.A.NO. 1210/2008 DT. 1-11-2008 IN APPEAL NO. 613/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- EXT.R3(a) NOTICE DT. 24-5-1994. EXT.R3(b) LETTER DT. 10-10-2008. EXT.R3(c) LETTER DT. 25-10-2008. EXT.R3(d) RESOLUTION DT. 7-7-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) Nos. 32755 & 35936 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4th December, 2008. J U D G M E N T Adv. Sri. Kuruvila Jacob takes notice on behalf of respondents 2 to 4. Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent in W.P(C) No. 35936/2008. Since in the other writ petition, viz. W.P (C) No. 32755/2008, which arises from the same set of facts, pleadings are complete and parties are ready for arguments, both these writ petitions were heard together finally by agreement. 2. The petitioner filed applications for renewal of licence for conducting four industrial units, which were rejected by the Secretary of the Panchayat by Exts.P23 to P26 orders. The basic reason for rejection is that the industrial unit is situated in Government land which was given to the petitioner on lease and the lease period has expired. Therefore, the petitioner has no valid title to the land in which the industrial units are established. Against those orders, normally an appeal would lie to the Panchayat Committee. However, on the ground that the petitioner would not get any justice from the Panchayat Committee, in so far as the Panchayat Committee themselves applied for assignment of the very same land in their favour, the petitioner filed appeals before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. By Exts.P28 to P31 orders, those appeals were rejected on the ground that under Section 276(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, appeal in the first instance lies to the Panchayat Committee. The petitioner is challenging those orders in this writ petition. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the appeal before the Panchayat Committee is illusory in so far as the Panchayat is interested in the subject matter since they themselves have applied for assignment of the very same land in which the industrial W.P.C. Nos. 32755 & 35936/08 -: 2 :- establishments are functioning and it is in their interest to get the petitioner out of the land as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the petitioner submits that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders may be quashed and the Tribunal may be directed to consider the contentions of the petitioner on merits without relegating him to the appeal before the Panchayat Committee. 4. This is stoutly opposed by the counsel for respondents 2 to 4. According to him, when the statute prescribes a first appeal before the Panchayat Committee, the petitioner cannot under law by-pass that remedy and file an appeal straight before the Tribunal. Therefore, he would submit that the impugned orders are correct and sustainable. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. It is not disputed before me that the Panchayat has filed an application for assignment of the land on which the industrial units are established by the petitioner licences for which have been rejected on the ground that the lease of the land from the Government has expired. Therefore, I find considerable force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the remedy by way of appeal to the Panchayat Committee against the order of the Secretary would be illusory and an empty formality in so far as the result would be foregone conclusion. As such, I do not think that the petitioner should be relegated to the futile exercise of going through the motions of filing an appeal and getting it dismissed before filing appeal before the Tribunal. I am also impressed by the contention of the petitioner that such an appeal would be hit by the principle of “nobody shall be judge on his own cause” and bias in so far as the Panchayat is interested in the subject matter. In the above circumstances, I am of W.P.C. Nos. 32755 & 35936/08 -: 3 :- opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should consider the appeals filed by the petitioner on merits notwithstanding the fact that in the first instance, an appeal would lie to the Panchayat Committee. Accordingly, Exts.P28 to P31 in W.P(C) No. 35936/2008 are quashed. The Tribunal is directed to take back the appeals on file and dispose of the same on merits notwithstanding the availability of the remedy by way of appeal before the Panchayat Committee in the first instance. Till the Tribunal passes fresh orders in the appeals on merits, the interim order passed in W.P(C) No. 32755/2008 shall continue to be in force. Counsel for the Panchayat submits that the Tribunal may be directed to dispose of the appeal within a specific period. It would be open to the parties to approach the Tribunal for disposal of the appeals early and the Tribunal shall pass orders on the same taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the case. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/