High Courts have the authority to direct tribunals on appealability under local laws.

JUDGMENT :

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" i. Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, calling for records leading up to Exhibit.P14 order and quash the same.

ii. Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ, direction or order, calling for records leading up to Exhibit.P17 order and quash the same.

iii. Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram to restore Appeal No. 60/2026 to its file and decide the above appeal on merits.

iv. Direct the Registry to dispense with the production of English Translation of documents in vernacular language.

v. Such other reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstance of the case."

[SIC]

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 09.03.2026, this court passed the following order:

" Admit. Adv. Sri. M. Krishnakumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat takes notice for the respondents.

2. This Court, as per Ext.P16 judgment, allowed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (for short “Tribunal”), because both sides conceded that an appeal is maintainable. It will be better to extract paragraph No.2 of Ext.P16 judgment:

“2. The impugned order in this case is Ext.P14 proceedings. Admittedly Ext.P14 is an appealable order under Section 276 (4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act . This is conceded by the petitioner and the counsel for the Panchayat. If that is the case, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition need not be retained here. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition was filed on 27.11.2025; i.e., within the statutory period of filing the appeal. If that is the case, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Suresh K. v. Municipal Corporation of Kollam [2026 (1) KHC 406] , the petitioner can be allowed to file an appeal before the Tribunal.”

3. Thereafter, the Tribunal passed an order stating that no appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that this is nothing but insubordination from a Tribunal. A Tribunal does not have the authority to sit in appeal against a judgment rendered by the High Court. When the High Court passed an order, if there is any illegality or irregularity in it, this Court can review the judgment. No Tribunal can sit in appeal against the judgment of a High Court.

4. Moreover, the order of the Tribunal says that it is a proceedings under Section 235 AA of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act . But the impugned order before the Tribunal is not a proceedings independently taken under Section 235AA of the Panchayat Raj Act. The Panchayat issued such an order based on the directions of this Court in Ext.P12. In Ext.P12 judgment, this Court issued certain directions and without considering the same, the Panchayat issued Ext.P14 order. Therefore, this Court observed that an appeal is maintainable.

The Registry will get an explanation from the Tribunal for passing an order like Ext.P17. There will be an interim stay as prayed for, for a period of one month.

Post on 27.03.2026."

3. Now, a detailed explanation is submitted by the presiding officer of the tribunal for the Local Self-Government Institutions. This court perused the same. The Presiding Officer has stated that Ext.P17 order was passed by the officer on a mistake and belief that Ext.P16 judgment of the High Court was permitting the petitioner to move the appeal before the appropriate appellate authority under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The Officer also reported that the appeal can be considered on merit.

4. This court called for the report because when a direction is issued by this court to entertain an appeal, the tribunal cannot say that an appeal is not maintainable. At th