IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 11526 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.A.JOSEPH, PALLICKAL HOUSE, KURICHILAKODE, KODANAD-683 544, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.M.KURIAN, MR.MATHEW B. KURIAN, MR.K.T.THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, KOOVAPPADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOOVAPPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. MANOJ, NJARAMPILLY HOUSE, KURICHILAKODE, KODANAD-683 544, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV.SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ, R2 BY ADV. MR.K.A.JALEEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11526/2009-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/12/2008 PASSED BY THE RDO. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/03/2009 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/03/2009 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LICENCE DTD. 28/01/2009 ISSUED TO THE R.2. EXT.P.5: CP, RESOLUTION NO.3 (1) DTD. 31/01/2009 BY THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPEAL/REVISION MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LSG. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.11526 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner seeks relief against the decisions of the Secretary and committee of a Grama Panchayat on the ground that the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions has refused to take Ext.P6 appeal on file. In view of the stand taken by the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader had been required to obtain instructions from the Secretary of the Tribunal as to whether the appeal of the petitioner has been returned or whether any order has been issued on its maintainability. Learned Government Pleader states today that the appeal is kept marked as defective and is listed for return on the ground that columns 4 and 5 of that appeal memorandum has not been appropriately filled. The petitioner states that Ext.P6 is the true copy of that appeal. If that were so, columns 4 and 5 have been filled. If the learned Tribunal doubts the maintainability of the appeal filed by the petitioner, it is for the Tribunal to hear the petitioner on the question of maintainability WPC.11526/09 Page numbers and issue an order after adjudicating on the question of maintainability, at least prima facie. The question of return can be only when the Tribunal assumes jurisdiction but states that the matter, as presented, is defective. Return of an appeal memorandum for curing defects or for re-presentation before another authority is not the same as holding that it is not maintainable. Having regard to the entries at columns 4 and 5, I deem it appropriate for the Tribunal to hear the petitioner and his counsel on the issue of maintainability of the appeal so filed. Such decision to follow at the earliest, say within three weeks, since the petitioner appears to be desirous of obtaining interim orders from the Tribunal. All issues on merits, including maintainability, are left open. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.24/7.