LAWS(KER)-2006-5-15

P T ABDURAHMAN Vs. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

Decided On May 23, 2006
P.T.ABDURAHMAN Appellant
V/S
TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions raise common questions and hence they are disposed of by a common judgment. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 22971 of 2005 is a resident of the respondent Panchayat. He challenges Ext.P5, the common order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal Nos. 100 and 117 of 2005. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 decision of the Panchayat also and seeks a direction to the Panchayat to invite fresh offers by proper notification for the construction of the bus stand. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 23098 of 2005 challenge the same orders as are challenged in W.P.(C)22971 of 2005 and further seek a direction to appoint an expert committee to conduct a comparative study of the proposals submitted pursuant to Ext.P4 resolution. The also seek a mandamus to the second respondent Panchyat to accept Ext.P6 proposal offered by the petitioners.

(2.) Briefly the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 22971 of 2005 is that the respondent Panchayat took Ext.P7 decision on 23.11.2004 to call for applications from persons who were prepared to make available land suitable for the construction of a bus stand and thereafter the Panchayath decided by Ext.P2 to accept the proposal of respondents 3 and 4 yielding to pressure. The decision is that of majority. It is pointed out that respondents 3 and 4 had large extent of landed properties and the offer was with the ulterior motive of creating accretion to the value of the surrounding properties. Petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal. The appeal was rejected by Ext.P5 order issued by the Tribunal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders cannot be sustained on the following grounds:

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that there is no merit in the writ petitions. The would in one voice submit that this court should not overlook the limits of its jurisdiction under Article 226. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has considered all aspects and the writ petitions should not be treated as if they were appeals against the well considered order by the Tribunal confirming the decision of the Panchayat. In this connection, attention was drawn by Sri.V.Giri, learned counsel appearing for one of the party respondents, to the decision of the Apex Court in G.B.Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council ((1991) 3 SCC 91), Tata Cellular v. Union of India ((1994) 6 SCC 651) and Raunaq Internaitonal Ltd. v. I.V.R Construction Ltd ((1999)1 SCC 492).