IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10182 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.V.THOMAS, AGED 62, PYNADATH HOUSE, CHULLY.P. AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AYYAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, AYYAMPUZHA.P.O. VIA MANJAPRA-683581. 3. PRESIDENT AYYAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, AYYAMPUZHA.P.O. VIA MANJAPRA-683 581, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI K.J.MOHD ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C).No.10182/2008-K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The Panchayat has not entered appearance even though service was made on the Panchayat by a Special Messenger deputed by this Court. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P9 order by which the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institutions dismissed I.A.No.927/2007 filed by the petitioner for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for conducting a local inspection. On going through Ext.P9, I find that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application holding as follows:- “Considering the nature of the appeal as amended the commission prayed for is unnecessary and improper.” 2. Sri.V.Rajendran Perumbavoor would draw my attention to the averments in paragraph No.6 of the writ petition with regard to Ext.P6, the objections filed by the Panchayat. The learned counsel submitted that the assertion that “on the southern side of the quarry within 50 metres there are 17 residential houses” – the assertion on the basis of which the licence was declined by the Panchayat – is absolutely incorrect. According to the learned counsel, it was for the purpose of convincing the Tribunal that the above assertion made by W.P.(C).No.10182/2008-K 2 the Panchayat in the statement of objections was wrong that commission was applied for. 3. Having considered the above submission, which is not resisted before me by the Panchayat, I feel that report by a Commissioner after a local inspection on the above aspect can be of some assistance to the court in resolving the issues correctly. I set aside Ext.P9 and direct the Tribunal to consider I.A.No.929/2007 by appointing an Advocate from a panel to be submitted by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The panel will contain names of two advocates each drawn from the North Paravoor, Perumbavoor and Aluva bars. The Tribunal will identify the Commissioner after hearing both sides and issue orders allowing I.A.No.927/2007. The Tribunal will also, considering the urgency which is projected before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner – which again is not disputed by anybody, hear and finally dispose of the appeal within six weeks of the date of receiving the Commissioner's report. The commissioner should be authorised to report on all matters which according to the parties are relevant. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, Judge ms