IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 1111 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SOMY CHERIAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.CHERIAN KIZHAKKETHOTTATHIL, 33/5489, UNNI RARICHAN VEEDUPARAMBU, SUB-STATION ROAD, CHEVAYOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE-17. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JOY C. PAUL SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON SMT.M.SRUTHY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DR.FIBIN, 5/2675 B, PLOT NO.12, CHERUTTY NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, PUTHIYARA P.O., KOZHIKODE-4. 2. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTATION BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANJAR BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,SC,KOZHIKODE CORP(R2) SRI.K.M.FIROZ (R1) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 1111 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February , 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P8 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions refusing to condone the delay of 95 days caused in the matter of filing the appeal against Ext.P4 order. The Tribunal cannot be faulted for having issued Ext.P8 order since the Tribunal's power to condone the delay is limited by the proviso to Rule 8 of the Tribunal's Rules. But at the same time, it is clear that the petitioner has not been heard by the local authority before Ext.P4 building permit was issued to the first respondent. It appears that the petitioner is having an apparently genuine grievance regarding Ext.P4. Hence it is only appropriate that the said grievance is be considered by an authority which is competent to conduct full pledged enquiry and take a decision. 2. There is very stiff opposition from the side of Sri. WPC No.1111/2008 2 K.M.Firoz, the learned counsel for the party respondent in granting any relief to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the question to be considered by this court while exercising jurisdiction, whether it be under Article 226 or 227, is only whether the order of the Tribunal can be said to be wrong. Having regard to the position in law, as it obtains now , Ext.P8 order is perfectly justified, the learned counsel submits. Though Mr.Firoz's submission is not without merits, on consideration of justice, I direct the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions to entertain Ext.P5 appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law, at the Tribunal's earliest and at any rate within three months of registering the appeal. In order to enable the Tribunal to do that, I quash Ext.P8. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk