IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6559 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MANJU I.K., AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.INDIRAMMA, KAMALA BHAVAN (MADATHUVILAKOM), POOVAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI SRI.K.N.ABHILASH. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, POOVAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.HASSAN KANNU, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, BAITHUL BARKA, PP.IV/482, POOVAR, NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO.15, INDIRA NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY S.C. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP BY ADV. SRI.B.SATHIQ (R2) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 6559 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March , 2008 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Dileep P.Pillai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.R.T.Pradeep, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Panchayat and Sri.B.Sathiq, the learned counsel for the second respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would assail Ext.P1 on the ground that Ext.P1 is not preceded by a hearing of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, this court under Ext.P2 judgment granted an opportunity to the petitioner for preferring an appeal to the Tribunal against Ext.P1 and that opportunity has not been availed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge Ext.P1 indirectly by filing this Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Ext.P4 preferred before the Tribunal against Ext.P3. It will be seen from Ext.P4 WPC No.6559/2008 2 that the petitioner has raised grounds of challenge against Ext.P1 also in Ext.P4. I am of the view that, on the circumstances which attend on this case, the Tribunal should consider the merits of those grounds also. 3. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions to take up Ext.P4, hear the petitioner, the second respondent and the Panchayat, on all the grounds raised in Ext.P4 including the grounds of challenge against Ext.P1 and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law at the earliest. The Tribunal will dispose of the appeal in any event within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment. The second respondent has a contention that Ext.P4 appeal is not maintainable in law. The Tribunal will certainly notices this contention and give its verdict on this contention also. Considering the above directions, the Panchayat is directed not to implement Exts.P1 or P3 till such time as Ext.P4 is disposed of. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. WPC No.6559/2008 3 dpk