The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining clear procedural pathways for appeals within statutory frameworks.

1. Heard Ms. Mini V. A. representing Mr. Jayakumar J., learned counsel appearing for the Appellant in W.A.No.1876 of 2024, Mr. B. K. Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 in W.A.No.1876 of 2025, Mr. K. B. Arunkumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation of Cochin and Mr. K. P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader for the State.

2. The Appellants in both the writ appeals are aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 12 November 2024 in W.P.(C)No.30902/2024, which they have impugned in respective appeals.

3. The Appellant in W.A.No.1876/2024 is the Original Petitioner. The Appellant in W.A. No.22/2025 is the Party Respondent in the writ petition.

4. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 27 August 2024 passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions with a further prayer that the Tribunal should consider and dispose of the appeal on merits.

5. The Tribunal, under Ext.P3 order, noting that it was an appeal filed under R.8 of the Tribunal for Kerala Local Self Government Institutions Rules , 1999 and S.509 of the Municipality Act r/w R.108 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 2019, and also holding that the appeal does not come within the purview of S.509 (6) or (7) of the Kerala Municipality Act , dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

6. The learned Single Judge held that since an appeal is preferred to the Council only under S.509(6), it cannot be said that the order of the Tribunal is wrong in any manner. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed that it will be open to the Petitioner to file an appeal before the Council under S.509(1) of the Act and the time spent from 23 August 2024 shall be excluded from computing the period of limitation. The revenue recovery proceedings were stayed for one month. The said order is extended for a further period of one month to enable the Petitioner to avail the remedy under S.509(1).

7. In the appeal filed by the Petitioner, the contention is that the appeal under S.509(1) is not maintainable and, therefore, the impugned order ought to be set aside. According to the Appellant / Original Respondent, no appeal is maintainable at all against the order passed under Ext.P1 and the only recourse is to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the appeal would be maintainable under R.108 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 2019. Various questions would arise as to the maintainability of the appeals: firstly, whether the appeal against Ext.P1 order is maintainable at all before the statutory forum and secondly, if it is maintainable, before which forum. These questions are missing in the impugned order and that is the reason both the appeals are before this Court. Therefore, all the parties have challenged the impugned order on different grounds which were not considered. We set aside the impugned order and restore the writ petition.

8. In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment dated 12 November 2024 and restore Writ Petition No.30902/2024 to the file. Ordered accordingly. Learned counsel for the parties states that they will advance their respective arguments before the learned Single Judge.