IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15367 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678001. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, CIRCLE OFFICE AT VANKARATH TOWERS, 8TH FLOOR, NH-47, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682024, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD LEGAL, PREMKRISHNAN NAIR M.N. 3. SHIBU MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, PARTNER, PALATHRA CONSTRUCTIONS, RESIDING AT PALATHRA HOUSE, THURUTHY P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM- 686535. BY G.P.SRI.A.J.VARGHESE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15367 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 8th June, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Ext.P9 is an interim order passed in I.A.No.521 of 2011 in Appeal No.340 of 2011. The said appeal has been filed against Ext.P5 order dated 11.4.2011 requiring the 2nd respondent to stop construction of Mobile Tower in the property in question comprised in Survey No.1618/1B, Block No.43 of Palakkad -II Village. As per Ext.P9, the Tribunal stayed the operation and implementation of Ext.P5 order till disposal of the appeal. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P9 order granting stay of Ext.P5 till the disposal of the Appeal should not have been passed by the Tribunal before passing orders on Ext.P7 petition for condonation of delay, with notice to the petitioner. Relying on Rule 8 of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions Rules, it is contended that an appeal would not get life without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It is further contended that the impugned order viz., Ext.P5 before the Tribunal is an order passed under section 396 of the Kerala Municipality Act and therefore, an WP(C).No.15367/2011 2 appeal would lie only before the Council of the concerned Local Self Government Institution and the unsuccessful party in the appeal could file a revision before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. In short, the contention is that Ext.P5 is not appealable before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. 3. Evidently, Ext.P9 is an ex parte order. A perusal of the same would reveal that the impugned order has been stayed till the disposal of the appeal. I do not propose to consider the aforesaid contentions on merits at this stage and in view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to respondents 2 and 3. The Tribunal had no occasion to consider those contentions. I am of the view that the petitioner has to take up all such contentions before the Tribunal at the first instance and to seek for modification/vacation of the order in Ext.P9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a proper application before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions either for vacating or for modifying the order in Ext.P9 by raising all the available contentions. In case the petitioner prefers such a petition the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions shall take up the said petition with notice to respondents 2 and 3 and pass appropriate orders WP(C).No.15367/2011 3 thereon expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of such petition. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS