In this writ petition, the challenge is against Ext.P11, an order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.

2. Petitioner states that he is a resident of the 1st respondent Municipality. Ext.P8 is a notice issued by the respondent Municipality inviting bids for private sector participation in the implementation, construction, operation and maintenance of E.K.Nayanar Memorial Bus Terminal Complex at Kunnamkulam, Thrissur. It is stated in Ext.P8 that the project will be implemented on a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis by the party selected from amongst those bidding on the basis of Ext.P8. Although several persons purchased tender documents and participated in the pre-bid meetings, finally bid was received only from the 3rd respondent herein, M/s.Ganga Constructions. The bid was considered and by Ext.P9 resolution, the Municipality resolved to accept the offer made by the 3rd respondent with a concession period of 17 years and 11 months.

3. Against Ext.P9 resolution, the petitioner filed Ext.P10 appeal before the 4th respondent, the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions invoking its power under Section 509(7) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The appeal was numbered as Appeal No.4191/09. By Ext.P11 order dated 4/12/09, the Tribunal returned the appeal on the reasoning that Ext.P9 is not a decision appealable under Section 509(7) of the Act. According to the Tribunal, Ext.P9 is a decision traceable to 216 of the Act and therefore the remedy available to the petitioner is under Section 57 of the Act, provided there are valid grounds for doing so. It is thereupon that the writ petition is filed seeking to challenge Ext.P11 order of the Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Section 509(7) provides that an appeal may be preferred to the Tribunal, against any decision passed by the Council or any order or notice issued by the Chair person or Secretary on the basis of such decision, on any matter provided in Sections 310 to 508 other than Sections 390, 391, 395, 406 and 408 or the rules, bye-laws or regulations made thereunder. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P9 is a decision taken by the Municipality under Section 472 of the Act and hence Ext.P10 appeal is maintainable. It is also his contention that Section 216 mentioned in Ext.P11 order passed by the Tribunal relates only to decisions taken by the Municipality in respect of matters which are the duties of the Municipality. It is contended that a decision as reflected in Ext.P9 is outside Section 216 and that therefore Ext.P11 order is illegal.

5. On the other hand, standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent sought to sustain Ext.P11 order of the Tribunal. According to them, the decision is traceable only to Section 216 and therefore the Tribunal has rightly passed Ext.P11 order.

6. As already seen, Section 509 of the Municipalities Act provides for appeal and revision to the Tribunal. Section 509(7) provides that an appeal may be preferred to the Tribunal, against any decision of the Council or any notice issued based on any such decision on any matter provided in Sections 310 to 508 other than Sections 390, 391, 395, 406 and 408 or the rules, bye laws or regulations made thereunder. Therefore, if as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P9 is a decision traceable to Section 472, obviously the appeal was maintainable and on the other hand, if the decision is one coming under Section 216 as held by the Tribunal and contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the appeal was not maintainable.

7. Ext.P9 resolution is what is challenged in the appeal. This decision taken by the Municipality is not one deciding to establish the Municipal Bus Terminal Complex or to operate the same on BOT basis. By this decision, the Municipal Council has only ratified and approved the minutes of the pre-bid meeting held on 13/10/2