IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 W.A.No. 1275 of 2008 ---------------- --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10983/2008 DATED 21/05/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- BHARTI INFRATEL LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI AIR TEL LTD. S.LAVENUE N.H.BYEPASS, KUNDANNOOR, MARADU P.O., KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, EDAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EDAYUR P.O., MALAPPURAM, 676 584. 2. EDAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, EDAYUR P.O., MALAPPURAM, 676 584. REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1275 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 11th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. What was questioned by the petitioner in the writ petition is Ext.P4 order passed by the Secretary of the Edayur Grama Panchayat. 2. The learned Single Judge has only said in his order that if for any reason the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he has got a right of appeal under the Panchayat Raj Act, and therefore, has declined to entertain the writ petition. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner in the writ petition is before us in this writ appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge has not decided the matter on merits. He has only said that if for any reason, the petitioner has any grievance with regard to Ext.P4 order, he has a right of appeal and that appellate remedy is not only effective but also an efficacious remedy. In our opinion, the reasoning and conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge does not call for our interference in appeal. 5. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. However, we grant a week's time to the appellant to prefer an W.A.No.1275 of 2008 2 appeal before the appellate authority as provided under the Act and if such an appeal is filed within the time granted by this Court, the appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal on merits without reference to the period of limitation. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns