IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29905 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VARGHESE J. @ VARGHESE JOSEPH, PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAROOR, AMBALAPPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. PURAKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PURAKKAD P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, PURAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PURAKKAD P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. IBRAHIMKUTTY, PALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAROOR, AMBALAPPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SMT.P.V.ASHA , SMT.LEENA RASHEED. R3 BY SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN, SMT.K.V.RAMYA, SRI.DIPU JAMES . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.29905/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DTD. 21.6.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE IST RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER AND OTHERS. P2:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.4878/2010 DTD. 28.7.2010 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF THE EXT.P3. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 14.7.2010 IN WPC. 21972/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 4.8.2010 ISSUED TO PETITIONER. R1(b):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 5.8.2010 FROM THE POST OFFICE. R1(c):- COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY SMT.NEETHU. R1(d):- COPY OF THE DECISION DTD. 2.9.10 OF IST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29905 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a resident of Purakkad Grama Panchayat. The third respondent is his immediate neighbour. On the application filed by the third respondent, the second respondent, Secretary of Purakkad Grama Panchayat granted him permission to put up a building for starting an Ice plant. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner and others filed Ext.P1 appeal before the Committee of the first respondent Grama Panchayat and thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.21972 of 2010 in this Court. By Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 14.7.2010, a learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Grama Panchayat to consider the appeal and to take a decision thereon within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. A copy of Ext.P1 appeal was produced and marked as Ext.P6 in that writ petition. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to pass final orders on Ext.P1 appeal within a time limit to the fixed by this Court. 2. A counter affidavit dated 4.11.2010 has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In paragraph 5 thereof, it is stated that the committee of the Panchayat considered Ext.P1 appeal at its meeting held on 2.9.2010 and decided to reject the same. It is stated W.P.(C) No.29905/2010 2 that after this writ petition was filed, (27.9.2010), the said order [Ext.R1(d)] was communicated to all the parties including the petitioner herein and that the Committee of the Panchayat has also decided to issue licence to the third respondent to run the Ice plant in the disputed building. 3. The petitioner has filed an application to amend the writ petition (I.A.No.15979 of 2010) seeking a direction to the respondents to serve a copy of Ext.R1(d) order on him. He has also sought a declaration that he is entitled to challenge Ext.R1(d) in revision before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and that the period of limitation has to be counted from the date on which a copy of the said order was served on him. 4. A learned single Bench of this Court has in Varghese v. R.T.A., Malappuram (1984 (KLT) 991), interpreting the provisions contained in section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, held that the expression '30 days from the date of the order' must be understood as 30 days from the date on which the person invoking the revisional jurisdiction had actual or constructive knowledge of the order sought to be revised . The said view was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Varghese v. R.T.O. (1984 KLT 1082). In the W.P.(C) No.29905/2010 3 light of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Varghese v. RTO (supra), it has to be necessarily held that if an appeal lies from Ext.R1(d) to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, the period of limitation for filing the appeal has to be computed from the date on which a copy of Ext.R1(d) was either served by the first respondent or if it has not been served, the date on which the petitioner had actual or constructive knowledge of the said order. In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, leaving open the contentions of the petitioner and reserving liberty with him to challenge Ext.R1(d) in other appropriate proceedings. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.