D. BABU Vs. C. SHAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P7 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.

(2.) The petitioner is the 2nd respondent in Appeal No. 260/2021 on the files of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, which was preferred by the 1st respondent herein alleging inaction on the complaint filed by him before the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Panchayat. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is illegally and unauthorisedly conducting a cattle business in his property, without obtaining any license from the 2nd respondent and the said activity of the petitioner has obstructed the free ingress and egress of the 1st respondent from his residential building and has also caused severe health issues in the locality. The 1st respondent has approached this Court earlier by filing WP(C) No.6607/2020 against the alleged illegalities committed by the petitioner and this Court as per judgment dtd. 10/6/2020 disposed of the writ petition directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Neyyattinkara to consider the complaint preferred by the 1st respondent. Pursuant to the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the Village Officer to conduct an enquiry in this regard and the Village Officer has submitted a report before the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is also alleged that the Health Inspector has also submitted a report regarding the illegal cattle business conducted by the petitioner and thereupon the 2nd respondent issued a notice dtd. 17/3/2021, directing the petitioner to close down the illegal cattle business. The Vigilance wing of the Kerala State Electricity Board has also initiated an enquiry against the illegal business conducted by the petitioner. In spite of all these, it is alleged that, the petitioner is continuing with the illegal cattle business and thereupon Ext.P1 appeal was filed by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. During the pendency of the Appeal before the Tribunal, the petitioner was laid up due to Covid-19 pandemic and other health related issues and therefore, he could not contact his counsel and to file an objection to the appeal in time. Thereupon, the petitioner was set ex parte by the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent Panchayat was also set ex parte. Thereafter the Tribunal proceeded to allow the appeal as per Ext.P2 order, directing the 2nd respondent to initiate steps forthwith to close down the illegal cattle business after complying with the procedure established by law.

(3.) The petitioner submits that the allegations in Ext.P1 is completely baseless and the allegation that he is conducting cattle business in the property is false. It is further submitted that the petitioner's wife is rearing cattle and supplying milk to the nearby milk marketing society and since the petitioner's wife is rearing less than five cows, no license is required as per law. Subsequent to Ext.P2 order, the 1st respondent has preferred Ext.P4 petition to initiate prosecution proceedings against the 2nd respondent for disobedience of the directions in Ext P2 order. It is only when the 2nd respondent intimated the petitioner about Exts. P2 and P4, that the petitioner came to know about the order passed by the Tribunal. It is in such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 petition to set aside the ex parte order in Appeal No. 260/2021 and also Ext.P6 petition seeking to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order. The Tribunal as per Ext.P7 common order disposed both the aforesaid applications, taking the stand that the prayer to condone the delay in filing a petition for setting aside the ex parte order cannot be allowed as the proviso to Rule 8(3) of the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institution Rules, 1999 (herein after referred to as 'Rules 1999') precludes the Tribunal from condoning the delay beyond 60 days. The said decision of the Tribunal is challenged in this writ petition.