Ramachandran, J.

1. W.A.No.2125/2003 and W.A.No.215/2004 arise from the judgment in W.P.(C).No.34292/2003 dated 16-12-2003. The writ petition had been filed by a local authority (Perumatty Grama Panchayat) challenging Ext.P.6 order passed by the Government. The above said order came to be passed on an adjudication, as directed by this court at an earlier round of the proceedings. This had arisen, when the Panchayat refused to renew a licence, which had been earlier issued, facilitating an industrial establishment to manufacture branded items of beverages.

2. The writ petition had been disposed of with certain findings, observations and directions, the details of which could be stated later. The second respondent to the proceedings is a limited company-Hindustan Coco-Cola Beverages Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). Challenging such of those observations, which were likely to have hindered their normal manufacturing and sales activities. W.A.No.2125/2003 came to be preferred, at the instance of the company. The Panchayat has preferred W.A.No.215/2004 feeling aggrieved by some other findings that had been entered into by the learned single Judge, which would have, according to the Panchayat, gone against their interests.

3. W.A.No.1962/2003 had come to be filed at the instance of the said company, aggrieved about the judgment passed in W.P.(C).No.31286/2003 Dated 14-11-2003, which also concerned the issue of licensing. As the main issues have been agitated in the connected writ appeals, it was also posted along with them.

4. During the pendency of W.P.(C).No.34292/2003, the Panchayat had taken further steps for canceling the licence granted to the company and such proceedings had been subjected to an appeal, as envisaged under section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. However, the orders had been stayed by the Government W.P.(C).No.12600/2004 had been filed by the panchayat contending that the Government was not within its rights to tamper with such orders and the proceedings should not have been so interfered with. This too had been referred for being considered by a Bench, along with other cases.

5. Mr.K.Ramakumar, learned counsel for the Panchayat, submits that since an appeal had been filed by the Company against the steps taken for cancellation of the licence by the Panchayat, now that a statutory Tribunal has already been constituted, the appeal is to be deemed as transferred to such Tribunal. He submitted that perhaps without going to the merits or demerits of the contentions raised by the parties, it would have been proper for all concerned to agitate the matters before the said authority and a decision of this court could have been deferred to a future occasion.

6. Appearing on behalf of the State Government Mr.Rajan Joseph, the learned Additional Advocate General, also voiced this opinion. But Mr.Vaidyanathan, senior counsel representating the company, points out that although an appeal is pending, it arose as an off shoot of collateral proceedings, while the matter was being actively agitated before this Court by the parties and a finality would not have come, if the parties were relegated to pursue such remedies. According to him, since the validity and veracity of the government Orders had also been under challenge, the Tribunal would have been disabled to got into or effectively adjudge on such issues. On our part, we find that the matters had been pending before this court for almost two years, and a large amount of time had been spent and reports from expert bodies, appointed by the Court, have been made available. Therefore relegating the matter to be decided by the Tribunal may not be a proper procedure, since the effort is to have a lasting solution to the disputes that had cropped up, for unfortunate reasons. Hence the parties were required to state their respective cases.

7. Mr.Ramakumar submitted that the Panchayat, represented by him, should not be understood as having basi