Local Self Govt Tribunal | Limitation Under Rule 8(3) For Filing Petitions Not Applicable To Pleas For Setting Aside Ex-Parte Order: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently enunciated that the time limit which has been fixed under Rule 8 of the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institution Rules, 1999, is only in respect of petitions to be filed as provided in Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 1999 and not in respect of a petition filed in the said proceedings for setting aside of an ex parte orderor for condonation of delay.

Justice Viju Abraham, thereby set aside an order of the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institution (hereinafter, 'Tribunal') which had placed reliance upon Rule 8(3) for dismissing an application for setting aside the ex parte order and the application to condone the delay in filing the same. 

The 1st respondent herein, one C. Shaji had alleged that the petitioner, D. Babu, was illegally and unauthorisedly conducting a cattle business in his property, without obtaining any license from the Grama Panchayat Secretary (2nd respondent). When the 1st respondent moved the Tribunal, it set the petitioner and the Panchayat ex parte and directed the Panchayat Secretary to initiate steps to close down the alleged illegal cattle business.

It is the petitioner's case that the allegations are baseless and he did not require a license under law since his wife was rearing less than five cows. The petitioner averred that he had not been aware of the Tribunal order against him, and that it was only when the Panchayat informed him that he came to know of the same. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted that he had filed petitions seeking to set aside the ex parte order, as well as to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order. The Tribunal however, dismissed both petitions on finding that as per the proviso to Rule 8(3) of the Rules, 1999, the Tribunal is precluded from condoning the delay beyond 60 days. It is this decision of the Tribunal that was challenged in the present case. 

Advocates Girish Kumar M.S. and Adithya Rajeev argued on behalf of the petitioner that the proviso to Rule 8(3) is applicable only in relation to filing of appeals and revisions before the Tribunal and that it is settled law that every Tribunal is vested with inherent/deemed powers to render substantial justice. The counsels further submitted that as per Rule 25 of the Rules, 1999, the Tribunal is vested with the power to regulate the procedure in connection with the disposal of petitions before it in respect of matters not provided in the Panchayat Act or the Municipality Act.

On the other hand, the counsels for the respondents argued that Rules 16 and 19 of the Rules, 1999 only stipulated about the disposal of a petition ex parte and since the petitioner had filed the petitions beyond the time limit fixed as per the Rules, the Tribunal was right in passing the order. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has no power to set aside an ex parte order and to condone the delay in filing the same, beyond the time limit prescribed by the Act and the Rules. Additionally, it was averred that even in the writ petition, the petitioner had no case that he was functioning the unit after obtaining necessary licenses in this regard. 

The Court in this case perused Rule 8 of the Rules, 1999 which states about the 'Petitions to the Tribunal'. It noted that as per Rule 8(1) a petition submitted to the Tribunal shall be an appeal or revision against a notice, order or proceedings of the Village Panchayat; or Municipality or its Standing Committee for Finance or the Secretary in respect of any matter specified in the schedule appended to the Rules, 1999 or added to the said schedule by the Government from time to time by notification.

It further noted that Rule 8(2) mandates that if Village Panchayat or the Municipality or the Standing Committee for Finance or the Secretary has not taken decision within the prescribed time limit in cases where time limit has been prescribed in the Panchayat Act or the Municipality Act or in the Rules, the affected party can file appeal before the Tribunal.

The Court went on to note Rule 8(3) which prescribes the time limit for filing such petitions before the Tribunal, as well as the proviso which mandates that the the Tribunal may admit a petition submitted within one month after the said time limit, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient reason for not submitting the petition within the time limit.

The Court thus noted that the time limit fixed by the Rules was hence only in respect of petitions to be filed as provided in Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 1999 and not in respect of a petition filed in the said proceedings before the Tribunal for setting aside of an ex parte order and for condonation of delay in filing the same. 

It set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and directed the latter to rehear the matter and take a decision on the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

The respondents were represented by the Government Pleader Syamanthak B.S. and Advocates Latheesh Sebastian and R.T. Pradeep. 

Case Title: D. Babu v. C. Shaji & Anr. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 240 

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment