IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1898 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TANUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADV. MR.HARISH R. MENON MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRIDA BUILDING, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.P.SAMEER, S/O.K.P.ABDU, KATTIL PEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, CHEMBRA, MEENADATHOOR P.O., THANALLOOR VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. MR.K.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R2 MR.S.SREEDEV FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF AGREEMENT DT 13.4.07. P2 COPY OF DECISION DT 6.12.06. P3 COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED PRIVATE MARKET. P4 COPY OF LIST DT 2.6.08. P5 COPY OF DECISION DT 8.6.08. P6 COPY OF LICENSE APPLICATION DT 22.8.08. P7 COPY OF ORDER DT 15.9.08. P8 COPY OF DECISION DT 25.9.08. P9 COPY OF DECISION DT 23.2.07. P10 COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 16.12.08. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 1898 OF 2009 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Grama Panchayat. They are challenging Ext.P10 order of the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal had made it clear that the 2nd respondent has become entitled to a deemed licence for running a chicken store during the period 2008-09 in building No.TP 12/420 under section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act subject to the law, rules and by-laws and all conditions ordinarily imposed and the Panchayat was directed not to interfere with the trade except as provided by law. The primary objection raised by the Panchayat against Ext.P10 order is that the Panchayat was not given sufficient opportunity to place their case before the Tribunal and they were set exparte on the ground that they did not produce a copy of the decision on the application filed by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. The contention of the Panchayat is that there is no question of any deemed licence since the application for the licence submitted by the 2nd respondent had been considered and rejected within the WPC.1898/09 : 2 : prescribed time limit. 2. I have heard counsel for the 2nd respondent also. 3. I am not going into the merits of the case. I am of opinion that in the circumstances of the case the petitioner Panchayat should be given another opportunity to prove their case before the Tribunal. 4. In the above circumstances, Ext.P10 is quashed and the Tribunal is directed to reconsider Appeal No.514/2008 on merits, after giving another opportunity to the petitioner Panchayat to produce all documents and to contest the case. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE) aks