IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5788 of 2011(W) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. MOHAMMED SHA, S/O.S.ABOOBACKER, DARUSSALAM, PULANTHARA, SHANTIGIRI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ANEESA N.A., W/O.MOHAMMED SHA, DARUSSALAM, PULANTHARA, SHANTIGIRI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SMT.ZEENA S.FERNANDEZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023. 2. MANICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE MANICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PIRAPPANCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 607, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE PRESIDENT, MANICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE OF THE MANICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PIRAPPANCODE P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 607. 4. MOHAMMED FASILUDEEN, S/O.ABDUL RASSAK, VILAYIL PUTHENVEEDU, THEEPPUKAL MURI, POOLANTHARA, SANTHIGIRI KOLIYKODE VILLAGE, PIRAPPANCODE P.O., NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685 607. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SMT C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.5788 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 24th February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners who were conducting business in the sale of building materials in the building bearing No.MP-11/99C filed this writ petition mainly challenging Exts.P7, P9 and P10 orders issued by the second respondent. Admittedly, against Ext.P7 the petitioners have preferred Ext.P8 appeal as contemplated under section 276(1) of the Kerala Panjayat Raj Act (for short `the Act'). During its pendency Ext.P9 order was passed. On account of the failure on the part of the petitioners to close down the shop in question in terms of Ext.P9 it was closed down as per Ext.P10. Though the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Tribunal constituted for Local Self Government Institutions against Ext.P9 order that was returned as not maintainable. It was in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 2. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents at this stage. 3. Admittedly, Ext.P7 order was passed at the instance of the fourth respondent and Ext.P8 appeal was preferred before the appellate authority in terms of section 276(1) of the Act and it is still pending. WP(C).No.5788/2011 2 Evidently, the second respondent is clothed with the power to consider the appeal in terms of the provisions under section 276(1) of the Act. The appeal is dated 21.1.2011. In terms of the provisions under section 276 (3) of the Act, the appellate authority is bound to consider and pass orders on the appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of the appeal. Evidently, the appeal was received by the appellate authority on 22.1.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that along with Ext.P8 appeal a stay petition was also moved. However, no order was passed thereon. It is during the pendency of the appeal and the stay petition that Ext.P9 order was passed and ultimately the shop in question was closed as per Ext.P10. Considering the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:- The the second respondent Grama Panchayat is directed to consider Ext.P8 appeal in accordance with law especially taking into account Ext.P4 and also the fact that prior to the passing of Ext.P7 order no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, and pass orders thereon, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from today. Before passing orders on Ext.P8 appeal, the fourth respondent shall also be heard. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS