P.A.Joseph vs The Secretary on 23 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11526 of 2009(I)


1. P.A.JOSEPH, PALLICKAL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY, KOOVAPPADY GRAMA
                       ...       Respondent

2. MANOJ, NJARAMPILLY HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.M.KURIAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.A.JALEEL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :23/07/2009

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                   W.P(C).No.11526 OF 2009
                  -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009


                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks relief against the decisions of the

Secretary and committee of a Grama Panchayat on the ground

that the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions has

refused to take Ext.P6 appeal on file. In view of the stand taken

by the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader had been

required to obtain instructions from the Secretary of the

Tribunal as to whether the appeal of the petitioner has been

returned or whether any order has been issued on its

maintainability. Learned Government Pleader states today that

the appeal is kept marked as defective and is listed for return on

the ground that columns 4 and 5 of that appeal memorandum

has not been appropriately filled. The petitioner states that

Ext.P6 is the true copy of that appeal. If that were so, columns 4

and 5 have been filled. If the learned Tribunal doubts the

maintainability of the appeal filed by the petitioner, it is for the

Tribunal to hear the petitioner on the question of maintainability

WPC.11526/09

Page numbers

and issue an order after adjudicating on the question of

maintainability, at least prima facie. The question of return can

be only when the Tribunal assumes jurisdiction but states that

the matter, as presented, is defective. Return of an appeal

memorandum for curing defects or for re-presentation before

another authority is not the same as holding that it is not

maintainable. Having regard to the entries at columns 4 and 5, I

deem it appropriate for the Tribunal to hear the petitioner and

his counsel on the issue of maintainability of the appeal so filed.

Such decision to follow at the earliest, say within three weeks,

since the petitioner appears to be desirous of obtaining interim

orders from the Tribunal. All issues on merits, including

maintainability, are left open. The writ petition is ordered

accordingly.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

kkb.24/7.