The court held that the Tribunal was unable to decide the matter on merits due to lack of files and directed the Municipality to produce them. The Tribunal will pass fresh orders within three months following the limits set in the earlier judgment dated 11.12.2007.
Directions for filing of Municipal files resubmission and final orders by Tribunal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 208 of 2008(I) --------------------(JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.33265 OF 2005 DATED 11.12.2007) REVISION PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT IN WPC : -------------------------------------------------------CYRIL BRITTO, POMPOZHIYIL, C.M.C.3, CHERTHALA.
BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO
RESPONDENTS:
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.208 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.33265 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 7th March, 2008
ORDER
Mr.Roy Chacko, learned counsel for the review petitioner has
addressed me in extenso. He read over to me the full text of Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal and submitted that it is not correct to say that the Tribunal has passed the order only on the reason of nonproduction of the municipal files. The Tribunal had found more prominently that the Council's decision which had been impugned by the review petitioner before the Tribunal was on the basis of irrelevant considerations and beyond the terms of Ext.P2 judgment of this court. Mr.Roy submitted that in Ext.P2 judgment this court has made it clear that the enquiry by the Council in the appeal preferred by the 1st respondent should be confined to the question whether the issuance of licence in favour of the review petitioner was in accordance with law and other questions should not be considered at all. The Tribunal interfered with the appellate order passed by the Council finding specifically that the Council went beyond the limits set by this court in Ext.P2 judgment in taking a decision on the basis of the opinions expressed by the Councillors that the petitioner's hotel is
R.P.No.208/08 - 2 -
not functioning in hygienic manner. Having gone through the full text of the Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal, I am in agreement with Mr.Roy that the Tribunal did notice that the order of the Council which was appealed against before the Tribunal was bad due to the reason that the enquiry was not confined to the question whether the licence issued was in accordance with law and have proceeded on other irrelevant considerations such as unhygienic condition of the hotel. But at the same time, the Tribunal found it is unable to decide the question within the confines of Ext.P2 judgment of this court for want of the files. The Tribunal thought that the Municipality had not produced the files. There is some material produced by the Municipality which would show that actually files had been produced. This was why in the judgment dated 11.12.2007 this court had chosen to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to pass fresh orders on merits after directing the Municipality to produce the files again within a period of two weeks. The ultimate decision in my judgment dated 11.12.2007 will stand as such. The Municipality will produce the files within two weeks of the Municipal Council receiving copy of this order. The Tribunal will pass fresh orders on the issue within the contours set by this court in Ext.P2
R.P.No.208/08 - 3 -
judgment after hearing both sides. In other words, Ext.P4 appeal will be disposed of after hearing both sides. The Tribunal will take final decision on Ext.P4 at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving copy of this order.
The R.P. is disposed of as above.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
srd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the review petition under the judgment dated 11.12.2007 should be disposed of on the grounds raised by the learned counsel.
CYRIL BRITTO
CHACKO THOMAS
TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
