IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2011 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13664 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.L. GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, WELCOME GRANITES, VADAVUCODE P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABY KURIAKOSE, SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. JACOB MATHEW, MAKUCHIRA HOUSE, VADAVUCODE P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 310. 2. MANJANLLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.VAZHAKULAM, PIN-686 670. 3. THE PRESIDENT, MANJANLLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.VAZHAKULAM, PIN-686 670. 4. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K. REMESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 13664 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P13 order issued by the 4th respondent Tribunal. It is evident that the 1st respondent had filed an appeal before the said Tribunal challenging the decision taken by the Secretary of the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat to grant licence to the petitioner for conducting a granite quarry. Along with the appeal an interim application was moved seeking stay of implementation of the impugned decision, pending disposal of the appeal. The 4th respondent Tribunal, after finding that the appellant was successful in establishing a prima facie case, had granted an ad- interim order staying the impugned decision as well as licence granted, till the disposal of the appeal. The said interim order is challenged as one granted without any application of mind. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the appeal itself is not maintainable before the Tribunal. It is further contended that it is not a grant of new licence and what is WP(C) 13664/11 2 challenged by the appellant is a decision taken by the Panchayat to renew the licence during the year 2010. According to the petitioner, the granite quarry is a running unit, and any interdiction with respect to its functioning will cause serious prejudices and heavy financial loss. According to the petitioner, he had various business commitments which is to be honoured in a time bound manner. Petitioner also contends that filing of the appeal is part of the collusive attempts made by the 1st respondent and his hinchmen , who had filed two writ petitions against functioning of the unit, which are pending disposal before this court. It is only after failing in getting interim orders from this court that the 1st respondent had attempted filing of appeal before the Tribunal, is the contention. 3. However, I take note of the fact that the statutory appellate authority, 4th respondent Tribunal, is in seizin of the appeal. The order impugned in this writ petition is an ad- interim order issued without hearing the petitioner. It is always left open to the petitioner to file objections, both in the interim application as well as in the appeal, and to approach the Tribunal seeking modification of the interim order. It is also left open to WP(C) 13664/11 3 the petitioner to agitate the matter before the Tribunal on the question of maintainability of the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal now stands posted before the 4th respondent Tribunal on 30.5.2011. But it is submitted that any delay caused in vacating the interim order will result in serious prejudice and irreparable injuries. Being a statutory Tribunal, the petitioner can always approach the 4th respondent seeking an early disposal of the matter, by filing appropriate application for advancing hearing of the matter. 5. Under such circumstances the petitioner is relegated to the 4th respondent to file proper objections in the matter and to seek for modification of the impugned interim order. Needless to say that if any approach is made by the petitioner in this regard, the 4th respondent Tribunal should take all earnest endeavor to take a final decision regarding continuation of the interim order, at the earliest possible. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the 4th respondent Tribunal to redress the grievances by resorting to remedies as WP(C) 13664/11 4 described above. All the contentions raised in this writ petition are left open for agitation. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/