IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 1674 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KALLIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE) REP. BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KALLIYOOR PO PIN 695 042, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MEDICAL COLLEGE. PO,REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. SUNDARESAN, S/O. YUSUDASAN PUTHENVEEDU, KKULAKKOTHUKONAM KALLIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE FOR R4 SMT. P.V. PARVATHI GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 1674/2009. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.1021/04. EXT.P2 PROCEEDINGS DT. 5-1-2008. EXT.P3 LETTER DT. 30-7-2008. EXT.P4 APPEAL MEMORANDUM DT. 25-8-2008. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 10-10-2008. EXT.P6 I.A.NO. 1258/08 IN APPEAL NO. 436/08. EXT.P7 ORDER IN I.A.1258/08 IN APPEAL NO. 436/2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 1674 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 13th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Panchayat. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P5 and P7 orders passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in an appeal filed by the 4th respondent. Ext. P5 order was passed ex parte on the ground that although notice was served on 29-8-2008, no written statement was filed and the file was not produced by the petitioner-Panchayat till 7-10-2008. The petitioner submits that since the order was ex parte, the petitioner may be given another opportunity to contest the matter on merits. 2. This is stoutly opposed by the counsel for the 4th respondent, who would submit that there is unexplained laches on the part of the petitioner in the matter of contesting the appeal. 3. After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to contest the matter on merits. But the same shall only be on terms. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms: 4. Exts. P5 and P7 orders would stand quashed on condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.2500/- as costs to the 4th respondent. The Panchayat and the 4th respondent shall appear before the Tribunal on 30-3-2009. The petitioner would be free to pay the costs to the counsel appearing for the 4th respondent in this Court. On 30-3-2009, the petitioner shall file a written statement and produce the files before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal afresh in accordance with law. If the amount of costs is not paid as directed above, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment and the writ petition would stand dismissed. W.P.C. No. 1674/2009 -: 2 :- I make is abundantly clear that I have not considered the rival contentions on merits and it is absolutely for the Tribunal to decide every issue involved in the appeal on the basis of the materials before him. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/