SHAILA NASSAR Vs. UZHAMALAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this writ petition is Ext. P6 common order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal Nos. 684/2013, 732/2013 and 733/2013.

(2.) APPEAL No. 684/2013 was filed by the 3rd respondent challenging Ext. P4 building permit dated 03.10.2011 issued by the 1st respondent panchayath in the name of the petitioner. Appeal No. 732/2013 is filed by the 4th respondent challenging the decision dated 16.04.2013 of the 1st respondent panchayath and the consequential licence dated 02.05.2013 [Ext. P3(b)] issued by the 2nd respondent, by which blasting and mining operation of granite quarry by the petitioner was permitted. Appeal No. 733/2013 is filed by the 3rd respondent challenging the decision dated 30.09.2011 [Ext. P3(f)] by the 1st respondent panchayath, by which permit was granted to the petitioner to conduct a quarry and to conduct a crusher unit in the property comprised in Block No. 49 of the Uzhamalakkal Village. By Ext. P6 order, the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions allowed the appeals and set aside the respective proceedings issued by respondents 1 and 2. The Tribunal directed fresh consideration of the matter in a time bound manner following the legal requirements in accordance with law. The petitioner alleges that the appeals were not maintainable under Section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as they were miserably barred by limitation. The petitioner points out that the appeals were filed belatedly with a delay of more than 650 days. According to the petitioner, there was no provision for condonation of delay and the appeals were filed without any application for condonation of delay; and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the appeals at the threshold itself. The petitioner further alleges that Ext. P6 order was passed by the Tribunal in a mechanical manner acting in excess of its jurisdiction.

(3.) IN the detailed counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4, they have justified the impugned order.