JUDGMENT : C.S. DIAS, J. The writ petition is filed to quash Exts.P5 and P9 orders and Ext.P12 notice, and direct the 1 st respondent to reconsider Ext.P6 appeal. 2. Late Prathapachandran – husband of the 1 st petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 and 3 – had taken on lease a shop room in the shopping complex belonging to the 2 nd respondent-Panchayat. He was conducting a studio named 'Ullas Studio' in the shop room. Unfortunately, Prathapachandran died on 17.08.2020. After his death, the petitioners are continuing the business, and the 2 nd respondent has been accepting rent from the petitioners. Subsequently, the 3 rd respondent issued Ext.P2 notice for enhancement of rent and renewal of the lease. The petitioners had some difference of opinion with a political party, who instigated the 3 rd respondent to initiate proceedings to evict the petitioners from the shop room. Immediately, the petitioners filed O.S.No.623/2021 before the Court of Munsiff, Nedumangad, to restrain respondents 2 and 3 from forcefully evicting the petitioners. Irked by the suit, the 3 rd respondent issued a notice, invoking Section 4 of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 ('Act”, in short), to show cause why the petitioners should not be evicted from the shop room. Although the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 objections to the show cause notice, the 3 rd respondent passed Ext.P5 order under Section 5 of the Act. Immediately, the petitioners have preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the 1 st respondent. As there was a delay in filing the appeal, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.9877/2023 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment, directing the 1 st respondent to consider the appeal after hearing the petitioners and the 3 rd respondent. The 2 nd respondent was also directed to defer the coercive proceedings till the disposal of the appeal. Surprisingly, the 1 st petitioner was informed over phone on 18.06.2024 that the appeal was posted for hearing on the next day. The petitioners' lawyer appeared on the following day and prayed for time to file his written submission. Accordingly, the appeal was adjourned to 08.08.2024. However, Ext.P9 order was passed, confirming Ext.P5 order, without hearing the petitioners. Ext.P9 order is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The petitioners' lawyer appeared on the following day and prayed for time to file his written submission. Accordingly, the appeal was adjourned to 08.08.2024. However, Ext.P9 order was passed, confirming Ext.P5 order, without hearing the petitioners. Ext.P9 order is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent it is contended that, pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment, the petitioners appeared through counsel and prayed time to file their written submissions. But, there was no representation for the petitioners on the hearing date. But, the 3 rd respondent filed a statement stating that the lease was renewed only till 31.03.2021 and that the Panchayat was suffering huge loss due to the nominal rent that was fixed in respect of the shop room. There is no illegality in Ext.P9 order. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3 it is contended that, the 1 st petitioner's husband died on 17.08.2020. Although the 1 st petitioner had requested to transfer the lease to her name, the same was not accepted by the Panchayat because as per Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Acquisition and Disposal of Property) Rules, 2005, the transfer of the property of the Panchayat can be done through public auction or inviting tender. It is after considering Ext.P4 reply filed by the petitioners that Ext.P5 order was passed. The 1 st respondent has passed Ext.P9 order after hearing the petitioners' counsel. The petitioners have deliberately refrained from participating in the hearing. There is no illegality in Ext.P9 order. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 6. The petitioners' principal challenge in this writ petition pertains to Ext.P9 order passed by the 1 st respondent. The petitioners contend that, even though they had filed Ext.P6 appeal assailing Ext.P5 order and this Court directing the 1 st respondent to consider the appeal after hearing the petitioners and the 2 nd respondent-Panchayat, the same was not done by the 1 st respondent. This fact is evident from Ext.P9 order, wherein only the contentions of the 2 nd respondent have been considered. This fact is evident from Ext.P9 order, wherein only the contentions of the 2 nd respondent have been considered. Moreover, even though the petitioners' counsel had appeared before the 1 st respondent and prayed time for filing written submission, and time being granted, Ext.P9 order was passed before the written submissions were filed and without hearing the petitioners. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 stoutly opposes the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have no locus standi to assail Ext.P9 order because they are not the tenants of the 2 nd respondent-Panchayat. Hence, there is no necessity for the 1 st respondent to consider Ext.P6 appeal. 8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that Ext.P2 notice was issued on 16.11.2020 to Ullas Studio, after the death of Prathapachandran on 17.08.2020. Subsequently, Ext.P5 order was challenged by the petitioners in Ext.P6 appeal before the 1 st respondent, which was directed to be considered by Ext.P7 judgment, wherein the 3 rd respondent is also a party. This Court had specifically directed the 1 st respondent to consider the appeal, after affording the petitioners as well as the 3 rd respondent an opportunity of being heard. However, a reading of Ext.P9 order substantiates that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of being heard. 9. In light of the rival contentions made across the Bar, particularly taking note of the directions in Ext.P7 judgment, I am of the definite view that the petitioners should be granted one more opportunity to present their case, and the 1 st respondent is to be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, after hearing the petitioners and the 3 rd respondent. In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ petition by quashing Ext.P9 order and by directing the 1 st respondent to reconsider Ext.P6 appeal, in accordance with law, after issuing written notices to the petitioners and the 3 rd respondent, atleast two weeks before the date of hearing and affording the petitioners and the 3 rd respondent an opportunity of being heard. The above exercise shall be completed within 90 days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter and the 1 st respondent shall consider the appeal untramelled by any observations in this judgment. The above exercise shall be completed within 90 days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter and the 1 st respondent shall consider the appeal untramelled by any observations in this judgment. It would be upto the respondents 2 and 3 to raise all their contentions before the 1 st respondent, including the locus standi of the petitioners to file Ext.P6 appeal. Until orders are passed on Ext.P6 appeal, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 order shall stand deferred. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.