IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9095 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ YOUSUF, S/O.HYDRUMAN HAJI, THOMMANVALAPIL HOUSE, 4TH STONE, MANGAD P.O., KATTAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE WADAKKANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, WADAKKANCHERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.9095 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 18th March, 2008 JUDGMENT Not admitted. Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the third respondent. I have heard the submissions of Mr.Ravi.K., counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. I am of the view that in view of the obvious fact position and in the nature of the orders which are being issued, it is not necessary to issue notice to the 2nd respondent-Panchayat. 2. It appears to me that the petitioner is voicing a genuine grievance against the order passed by the Secretary of the Panchayat. Against the order passed by the Secretary of the Panchayat, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal did not entertain the appeal on the reason that the petitioner had remedy of appeal to the Committee of the Panchayat. Pursuant to that the petitioner preferred appeal to the Committee of the Panchayat. The Committee of the Panchayat took Ext.P6 decision on the appeal submitted by the petitioner and the Secretary of the Panchayat issued Ext.P7 order on the basis of Ext.P6 decision of the Panchayat. The petitioner would file an appeal on 25.2.2008 against Ext.P7. The Tribunal by a detailed W.P.C.No.9095/08 - 2 - order dated 2.3.2008 found that the appeal was not maintainable and that the proceedings submitted by the petitioner was defective. Pursuant to that order, the petitioner cured the defects. Necessary corrections were made on the proceeding filed by the petitioner so as to convert it as a revision petition. The 2nd defect was that column No.4 in the revision petition (which previously was an appeal memo) had not been filled up correctly. What has been written against column No.4 is the following: “The Secretary has issued an order dated 15.1.08 as C2-83/07 based on the decision of the Panchayat No.565/07 dt. 7.12.07.” After curing defects, the petitioner resubmitted the Revision Petition. The Registry of the Tribunal this time raised a question regarding the maintainability of the Revision Petition on the ground of delay since if the date of representation was reckoned as the date of filing, there will be delay. The grievance of the petitioner is that even now the revision petition has not been registered by the Tribunal on the reason that the decision challenged is not properly shown as the cause of action in column No.4. Column No.4 is in the form of question and answer and in the answer column what the petitioner is expected to give is the name of the authority that issued the order or W.P.C.No.9095/08 - 3 - that took action which has been the cause of the petition and the number and the date of such notice or order. As is presently seen the following is the answer given by the petitioner: “The Secretary has issued an order dated 15.1.08 as C2-83/07 based on the decision on the Panchayat No.565/07 dt. 7.12.07.” In my opinion there is substantial compliance with the requirements of column No.4 and the Registry of the Tribunal is unnecessarily raising objections. I allow the Writ Petition and direct the 1st respondent to number the revision petition which the petitioner has filed against the order of the Secretary of the Panchayat issued on 15.1.2008 which is based on the decision of the Panchayat No.565/07 dated 7.12.2007 at the earliest and dispose of the revision petition without undue delay after passing orders on the petition for condoning the delay of 7 days. The revision petition will be registered within 1 day of the petitioner resubmitting the original revision petition which was returned to him. In the meanwhile, there will be a direction to the Panchayat not to demolish the petitioner's building for a period of three weeks from today. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE W.P.C.No.9095/08 - 4 -