Xavier William vs Maradu Grama Panchayath … on 15 December, 2006

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 31722 of 2006(B)


1. XAVIER WILLIAM, S/O.THOMAS.V.J.,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. AJAYA WILLIAM, S/O.XAVIER,

                        Vs



1. MARADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED
                       ...       Respondent

2. CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,

3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :15/12/2006

 O R D E R
                              PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

                   ..........................................................

                            W.P.(C) No.31722 OF 2006

                  ...........................................................

                   DATED THIS THE 15TH DECEMBER, 2006


                                    J U D G M E N T

Heard Mr.P.J.Joseph Panikkassery, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri.S.Chandrasenan, learned counsel for the 1st

respondent-Panchayat.

2. One of the grievances of the petitioners is that since they

were not served with an authenticated copy of Ext.P1 order, the appeal

which was preferred by them before the Tribunal was returned by the

Tribunal. Mr.Panikkassery has a further grievance that a going

concern was closed down by the Panchayat all of a sudden without

giving notice.

3. Mr.S.Chandrsenan would submit that if the petitioners had

approached the Panchayat for an authenticated copy, the same would

have been readily issued. As regards the complaint regarding closure

of the business, Mr.Senan submitted that the Panchayat was justified

in doing so.

4. I do not propose to go into the merits of the grounds raised.

The Writ Petition will stand disposed of with the following directions:-

The 1st respondent-Panchayat is directed to serve the petitioners

with a duly signed and sealed copy of Ext.P1 order along with the

WP(C)N0.31722 OF 2006

-2-

order of the Tribunal in Appeal No.50 of 2004 dated 13.1.2005 which

is said to be already issued to the petitioners, within two days of the

petitioners producing a copy of this judgment. If the 2nd petitioner

makes a request before the 1st respondent for removal of computers or

electronic devices belonging to the 2nd petitioner presently kept inside

the premises, the 1st respondent will allow that request and open the

premises on a date to be notified to the 2nd petitioner for the purpose

of enabling the 2nd petitioner to remove the things he wants to

remove from the room. After the computers etc. belonging to the 2nd

petitioner are removed, the 1st respondent will be competent to close

down the room once again. If the Tribunal receives an appeal within

7 days of the petitioners receiving copy of the authenticated copy of

the order from the 1st respondent, the Tribunal will entertain the

appeal as one filed on time and dispose of the same in accordance with

law. It is open to the petitioners to seek any appropriate interim relief

from the Tribunal regarding reopening of the premises.

(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl

WP(C)N0.31722 OF 2006

-3-