IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 18456 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- B. PADMAVATHI AMMA, AGED 69 W/O.LATE P.K.GOPALA PILLAI, JAYA SADANAM, THEKKEKUTTU PERUMPANACHI, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY SECRETARY, (MINISTRY OF LOCAL ADMN.) SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE MADAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MADAPPALLY REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT 3. THE SECRETARY MADAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MADAPPALLY BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 18456 OF 2008 V ==================== Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P3 order passed by the Secretary of the Panchayat directing removal of certain obstructions, petitioner filed appeal to the 2nd respondent. That was rejected by Ext.P4. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was disposed of by Ext.P5. By Ext.P5 was rendered, on technical grounds and the Tribunal setting aside Ext.P3 directed that further action can be taken in the matter. 2. Following Ext.P5, Ext.P6 fresh notice was issued by the 2nd respondent and Ext.P7 objection was also filed by the petitioner. After completing all procedural formalities, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P8 order confirming Ext.P6. This was the subject matter of Ext.P10 Appeal No.40/2008 before the Tribunal. The appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal as per Ext.P9 order by setting aside Ext.P6 which again was on technical grounds. Thereupon, the Tribunal directed the respondents in the appeal to initiate fresh action, if there are reasons for the same. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal ought not have remanded the matter for the second time and that the issues raised in the appeal ought to have been decided on merits. WPC 18456/08 :2 : 2. I am not impressed by this argument for the reason that in Ext.P9, the Tribunal has interfered with Ext.P6 on technical grounds. If the Tribunal was satisfied that an order should be invalidated on technical grounds, it was only proper that the Tribunal did not enter into the merits of the issue as the whole issue was left open to be reconsidered by the original authority. Further, if on technical grounds an order is invalidated, authority is always at liberty to take fresh proceedings and complete the same in accordance with law. It is that liberty that is conceded by the Tribunal in Ext.P9. 3. I am not satisfied that Ext.P9 merits interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp