IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 36178 of 2008(F) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KANHANGAD MUNICIPALITY KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. MR.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.K.UNNIKRISHNAN S/O.K.K.MAIR, ADVOCATE, SARASWATHY NILAYAM CHERUVATHUR P.O.,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR.JAWAHAR JOSE FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 12/02/2009 ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.2907 OF 2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36178 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO R1 DATED 7.1.2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY OF R1 DATED 19.1.2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER OF THE MUNICIPALITY DTD 16.7.2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 27.8.2008 ISSUED BY R2. EXT.P5; COPY OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DTD 20.9.2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY R1 BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 19.6.2008. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD 23.5.2008. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE PETITION DTD 21.4.2008, SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(d): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER FOR EXT.R1(c) PETITION. EXT.R1(e): COPY OF THE TITLE DEED AND PLAN OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(f): COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF PARTITION DEED. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos.36178/08 & 2907 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is the Kanhangad Municipality in both the writ petitions. They are aggrieved by the ex-parte order passed in Appeal No.444/2008 and a further order in Appeal No.681/2008 directing the Municipality to comply with the ex- parte direction in Appeal No.444/2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the appeal was posted for the first time after notice to the petitioner on 18.9.2008, although the petitioner sought time to file statement and produce files, that prayer was rejected setting the petitioner ex-parte and passing Ext.P5 order (in W.P.(C) No.36178/2008). That oder was challenged by the Municipality in W.P.(C) No.36178/08. In that writ petition, notice was ordered and while the said writ petition was pending, the 1st respondent again filed the Second Appeal seeking implementation of the earlier order. Despite the petitioner appraising the Tribunal of the fact that W.P.(C) No.36178/08 filed against the order sought to be implemented, is pending, the Tribunal passed Ext.P8 order in W.P.(C) No.2907/09 directing the petitioner to comply with the directions in Appeal No.444/08 within one month. The petitioner – Municipality is challenging those orders in these two writ petitions. 2. According to the petitioner, when the Municipality appeared on the first hearing date and requested for time, the Tribunal ought to have granted some time, without doing which the Tribunal set the petitioner ex-parte only on the ground that the appellant (1st respondent respondent in two writ petitions) in that appeal was coming from Kanhangad. Although the procedure adopted by the Tribunal does not appear to be quite reasonable, in so far as when the Municipality requested for some time, the time could have been granted, I do not propose to set aside those orders, in so far as the Tribunal had only directed the Municipality to pass a fresh speaking order on the application dated 4.10.2007 filed by the 1st respondent pointing out reasons, if any, under Section 393 of the Kerala Municipality Act in case of refusal to grant the building permit. I am of opinion that the justice would be met if the adverse remarks made in the orders of the Tribunal are expunged and the Municipality is given time to pass fresh orders as directed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioner – Municipality to comply with the directions in the orders of the Tribunal within a period of one month from today and making it clear that the adverse remarks made against the Municipality shall not be held against the Municipality for any purpose whatsoever. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd