The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvnanthapuram in Appeal No: 527/2013. As per the impugned order, Ext.P1 proceedings have been set aside and fresh orders have been directed to be passed, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the first respondent. The contention of Adv.V.A.Johnson who appears for the petitioner is that, though the Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that an opportunity of being heard had not been given to the first respondent, he had in fact been issued with a show cause notice prior to the issue of Ext.P1. Ext.P1 was passed for the reason that, the first respondent had not responded to the show cause notice. Therefore, it is contended that Ext.P2 order is liable to be set aside. 2. Heard. It is true that, Ext.P1 is seen to have been passed in circumstances where the first respondent had not responded to the show cause notice issued to him. However, the fact remains that he was not heard. The Tribunal felt that it was necessary for a fresh order to be passed after hearing the first respondent also. I do not find any infirmity in the said view adopted by the Tribunal, warranting interference with Ext.P2 under Art.226 of the Constitution. It is only in compliance with the principles of Natural Justice that such a hearing has been directed to be afforded. The petitioner would also be at liberty to participate in such hearing. It is in the fitness of things that, a full and final adjudication of the dispute is conducted, with notice to both the parties.
3. In view of the above, I do not consider it necessary to admit this writ petition or to interfere with Ext.P2 as sought for. It shall be sufficient to direct that, the third respondent shall comply with the directions contained in Ext.P2 order, with notice to the petitioner also and shall pass appropriate orders in the matter, as expeditiously as possible.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge