IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 34211 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.G.LAL, S/O.T.P.GEORGE, THURUTHEL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE P.O., PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. P.M.VARGHESE, S/O.MATHAI, KUROORPOTTAYIL, VADAVUKODE P.O., PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VADAVUKODE PUTHENCRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PUTHENCRUZ P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, VADAVUKODE PUTHENCRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PUTHENCRUZ P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. M.D.GEORGE AND COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.D.GEORGE, MADAPALLIL HOUSE, OORAKATH KARA, EDATHALA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.34211 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are challenging Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions passed in an appeal filed by the 3rd respondent on the ground that although the petitioners were also entitled to be heard in the matter, they having been parties to an earlier appeal in respect of the same proceedings, and the 3rd respondent did not implead the petitioners in the appeal. The petitioners point out that in an earlier appeal filed by the 3rd respondent himself before the Tribunal, the petitioners were made parties and it is after hearing the petitioners also, Ext.P3 order was passed by the Tribunal in that appeal. That being so, according to the petitioners, Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal without hearing the petitioners is patently unsustainable. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. I do not think that I should now interfere with Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal on the ground urged by the petitioners in so far as by Ext.P5 order the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Panchayat Committee, holding that in the first instance it is the w.p.c.34211/08 2 Secretary who has to pass orders in the matter and not the Panchayat. The Tribunal has thereafter, directed the Secretary to pass fresh orders. Therefore, justice would be meted out to the petitioners, if they are also directed to be heard by the Secretary, while passing orders as directed by the Tribunal. In so far as in earlier proceedings the petitioners were parties and they were heard, I feel that it is only appropriate that the petitioners also be heard in the matter. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition holding that while passing fresh orders pursuant to Ext.P5 by the 2nd respondent as directed in Ext.P5, the petitioners shall also be afforded an opportunity of being heard. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.34211/08 3