IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37100 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): 1 ---------------- SOUTH JANATHA ROAD RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DR.P.HARIDAS SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-6882025. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 2. CORPORATION COUNCIL OF COCHIN CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. CAPT K.C.THOMAS, KATTAMPILLY HOUSE, R/AT.5-C, AMEYA-GOKULAM, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD., PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682025. 4. ALAN PAPALI, ADVOCATE, R.AT 5-C, AMEYA-GOKULAM SOUTH NANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682025. 5. GOKULAM ENGINEERS INDIA PVT.LTD. REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANJAM APARTMENTS, 40/871, CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN-11. 6. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. ADV.S.RAMESH BABU, SC G.P. SHRI.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 37100 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P20 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, whereby, on a revision petition filed by respondents 3 and 4 against an order of the 2nd respondent, the order of the 2nd respondent was set aside and the 2nd respondent was directed to pass proper considered orders on the appeal filed by respondents 3 and 4, within two months, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. I have gone through Ext.P20 order. The Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on merits on any of the aspects involved in the writ petition. The primary ground on which the matter was remanded was that respondents 3 and 4 were not afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order. The petitioner would contend that in paragraph 9 of Ext.P20 there is an incorrect decision as follows:- “The decision is only to the effect that as the Council is convinced that the land freely surrendered is necessary for development of road it is decided to acquire the land and to develop the road and hence it is decided to reject the 2 Appeal. If the land is already surrendered why it is yet to be acquired is not celar from the decision.” I do not think that that is a decision as such. The Tribunal was thinking aloud as to why, if the land is freely surrendered, the land should again be acquired. That is not a decision on any of the aspects of the petitioner's case. In any event, the Tribunal has only directed reconsideration of the entire matter. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge against Ext.P20 in so far as it is only an open remand to the Council for fresh decision on the appeal. However, I make it clear that the petitioners and counter petitioners in the revision shall be heard while passing fresh orders. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3