IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15801 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RELIANCE FRESH LIMITED, CHANDRIKA BUILDINGS, S.A.ROAD, VYTTILA. COCHIN - 10 REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO EBY MATHEWS. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ADICHANALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ADICHANALLUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, ADICHANALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ADICHANALLUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 15801 OF 2008 F ==================== Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8. 2. Ext.P8 is an order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions holding that the appeal filed by the petitioner against Exts. P3 and P5 orders is not maintainable. The Tribunal held that Exts. P3 and P5 are orders issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat refusing licence applied for by the petitioner under Section 232 of the Panchayat Raj Act and, therefore, appeal should be filed before the Panchayat under Section 276(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. On this basis it was held that the appeal to the Tribunal under Section 276(5) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, is not maintainable. 3. As is evident from Exts. P3 and P5 orders, these are orders issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat and not by the Panchayat as is sought to be made out by the petitioner. Having gone through Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal in its entirety, I see no reason to take a different view in this matter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the WPC 15801/08 :2 : grounds on which the licence has been rejected has already been interfered with by the Tribunal in Ext.P7, the orders are liable to be challenged even before this court and that the alternate remedy of appeal cannot stand in his way. I am not in a position to accept this submission. It may be true that the grounds on which the order has been rendered has not been accepted by the Appellate Authority. The Apex Court has in the case of Whirl Pool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others {(1998) 8 SCC (1)} indicated the broad grounds on which the litigant is entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without taking recourse to the alternate statutory remedy. The grounds indicated by the Apex Court are violation of the principles of natural justice, cases were vires of a statute is under challenge and cases where the act complied of is without jurisdiction. As already stated, in this case all that is argued by the counsel for the petitioner is that the grounds on which licence has been declined has already been interfered with by the Appellate Authority. Though this will render the order illegal, such a ground does not fall within the aforesaid exceptions indicated by the Apex Court and for that reason, petitioner is bound to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal. WPC 15801/08 :3 : 5. Having considered the order of the Tribunal, I am satisfied that against the impugned decision appeal lies to Panchayat Committee and that the appeal filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp