IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 16400 of 2008(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, KUNNAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. WAVE AQUA PRODUCTS, KP 1/296C, KARANTHOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR PREMJITH MENON, S/O.LATE K.KRISHNAN KUTTY MENON, 103, PANAMPILLY APARTMENTS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI. 2. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 16400 OF 2008 B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd June 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P8 order passed by the 2nd respondent Tribunal is under challenge. The 1st respondent had applied for the licence to establish a mineral water plant within the jurisdiction of the petitioner Panchayat. The Panchayat rejected the application for licence by Ext. P2. The said decision of the Panchayat was called in question by an appeal filed by the 1st respondent before the 2nd respondent and that resulted in Ext. P8. It is challenging Ext. P8 this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal declined to accept its written statement and the file produced and decided the matter ex parte relying on Rule 16 of the Kerala Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 1999. In my view a decision on the correctness of the plea of the petitioner is unnecessary for the disposal of this writ petition for the reason that although the Tribunal declined to accept the written statement and file, still the W.P.(C) No.16400 OF 2008 -2- Tribunal has gone through the matter and thereafter only has rendered Ext. P8 decision. A reading of Ext. P8 shows that the Tribunal has dealt with all the three grounds relied on by the Panchayat in Ext. P2 for declining the licence. For cogent reasons the Tribunal has disagreed with those reasons and allowed the appeal. On the facts as disclosed from Ext. P8, I see absolutely no justification to take a view different from the one taken by the Tribunal. 3. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. In view of the pendency of this writ petition in this Court it is directed that the time for reconsideration as directed by the Tribunal will stand extended by two more weeks from today. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-