Quashed

Jose Mathew v. the President, Kalady Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC10 Apr 2007WP(C)/11035/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a challenge to an order passed by the Secretary of a Grama Panchayat after an agenda item was adjourned from Board consideration. The Court held it improper for the Secretary to decide unilaterally and quashed the order, directing the Panchayat Committee to reconsider the issue.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P10 is quashed; Secretary is directed to place the issue before the next meeting of the Kalady Grama Panchayat Committee.

Jose Mathew Vs the President, Kalady Grama Panchayath — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2007 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 11035 of 2007(L)

PETITIONER:

JOSE MATHEW, KOLANCHERY HOUSE, MANIKAMANGALAM P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.IYPE JOSEPH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE PRESIDENT, KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J

¶18

W.P.(C) .11035 OF 2007

¶19

Dated this the 10^th day of April, 2007

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Mr.P.K.Muhammed, counsel for the

¶22

petitioner submits that the item having been included in the Agenda of the Panchayat Board Meeting and having received the support of a majority of the members of the Board, it was totally outside the powers of the Secretary to have passed orders himself after the adjournment of consideration of the item on the Agenda by the Board.

¶23

Sri.Dinesh Mathew Muricken, standing counsel for the respondent panchayat, drew my attention to Ext.R2(c) and Ext.R2(b) letter by which the District Collector directed the Secretary that licence shall be issued to the petitioner, only subject to the petitioner complying with all the 13 conditions in Ext.R2(c) order. Learned counsel brought to my attention paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit wherein it is stated

¶24

W.P.(C) .11035 OF 2007

¶25

:: 2 ::

¶26

that, at least, four conditions in Ext.R2(c) were violated by the petitioner and therefore, Ext.P10 order was perfectly justified.

¶27

petitioner took exception to the case of the Secretary that the four conditions referred to in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit had not been complied with.

¶28

force in the contention of the petitioner that the issue having been placed before the Board, it was not proper on the part of the Secretary to have taken a decision by himself.

¶29

In such circumstances, Ext.P10 is

¶30

quashed and the Secretary is directed to place the issue before the next meeting of the committee of the Kalady Grama Panchayat. The panchayat will, while adopting a decision, take into account Ext.R2(b) letter from the District Collector, Ext.R2(c) order as well as the report of the Secretary that the

¶31

W.P.(C) .11035 OF 2007

¶32

:: 3 ::

¶33

petitioner has violated 4 of the 13 conditions in Ext.R2(c). A fresh decision, as indicated above, will be taken by the committee in its next meeting. If the petitioner is desirous of having a hearing opportunity before the committee, it is open to him to make a request in that regard, in which case, the same will

¶34

be granted.

¶35

Writ petition is disposed of as

¶36

above.

¶37

Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE (JUDGE)

¶38

sk1/-

¶39

//true copy//

¶40

W.P.(C) .11035 OF 2007

¶41

:: 4 ::

¶42

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J

¶43

¶44

W.P.(C) .11035 OF 2007

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

10^th April, 2007

¶47

Jose Mathew v. the President, Kalady Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Mathew v. the President, Kalady Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Sankara Warrier Vs State of Kerala

V.V. Shaji Vs Thiruvalla Municipality

Pearl Spot Resort Ltd. Vs the Secretary

Babu John Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Abu & Another Vs Perumbavoor Municipality

Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs Cherthala Municipality