1. These writ petitions relate to the orders passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions against the decision taken by the Mallappally Grama Panchayat.

2. W.P(C) No.32033/2008 is filed by the aforesaid Panchayat. W.P(C) No.32935/2008 is filed by the owner of the building in Sy. No.382/8 of Mallappally village. W.P(C) No.597/ 2011 is also filed by the same petitioner, against the order in a revision by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.

3. In W.P(C) No.32033/2008 by the Panchayat, they would allege that they have issued notice to the first respondent and her children to stop the business conducted in the rooms belonging to the second respondent which according to them, was being conducted without any licence from the Panchayat. The occupant was also directed to pay penalty for carrying on the business without licence as provided under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. However, on appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, it was found that the Panchayat cannot recover penalty and directed the Panchayat to issue licence to the occupant. Therefore, the Panchayat has challenged the said order which is produced as Ext.P9 in that writ petition.

4. As already stated, W.P(C) No.32935/2008 is by the owner of shop room. She was arrayed as the second respondent in the writ petition filed by the Panchayat. In this writ petition, she would allege that one Siddique Musaliar, the late husband of the second respondent (first respondent in W.P(C) 32033/08) was conducting business in three shop rooms belonging to the petitioner without obtaining licence from the Panchayat. However, pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment of this Court, the first respondent reconsidered the matter and Ext.P6 resolution was passed by the Panchayat and decided to issue notice to the second respondent and other legal heirs of late Siddique Musaliar and the said business was being conducted unauthorisedly. This was followed by Ext.P7 notice to the second respondent.

5. The petitioner alleges that, however, the second respondent alone challenged the validity of Exts.P6 and P7 proceedings by way of Ext.P8 appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions which resulted in the order under challenge in W.P(C) No.32033/2008. This petitioner also alleges that the said decision is erroneous and, therefore, she has sought to quash the same which is produced as Ext.P11.

6. The same petitioner has filed W.P(C) No.597/2011 challenging the order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in R.P No.5 of 2010 (Ext.P16) filed by her before the said Tribunal. In the said revision, the revision petitioner challenged Ext.P14 communication received from the respondent Panchayat informing her that the Panchayat has rejected her appeal by Ext.P13 resolution. She alleges that Ext.P13 resolution was not served and accordingly, she committed a bona fide mistake and submitted an appeal against Ext.14 order dated 9.11.2009 under Section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj act, 1994 which was returned to her for representation as revision petition. In the meantime, there occurred a delay of more than one month. The said delay was computed taking into account the service of Ext.P14 communication of the petitioner on 13.11.2009. The petitioner alleges that a revision petition ought to have been filed against Ext.P13 resolution as the same was the decision taken by the Panchayat on her appeal. According to her, as the same was not served, there was no delay in the matter of submitting the revision and the Tribunal did not consider the said fact and the same has resulted in the impugned order dismissing the revision.

7. In that writ petition, the Panchayat has filed a counter stating that the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days. They would contend that the appeal filed by the writ petitioner was against the application for licence filed by the second respondent. It was contended that the c