Dismissed

Adat Grama Panchayath v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Oct 2008WP(C)/2131/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner Panchayat challenged the decision not to entrust management of a Government Tourist Centre. The Court held that no provision of law compelled such entrustment and dismissed the writ petition exercising discretion against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is not entitled as of right to claim management of the Tourist Centre; petition dismissed.

Adat Grama Panchayath Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 2131 of 2008(D)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

---------------

¶9

ADAT GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ADAT PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PURANATTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 551.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.M.T.SHEEBA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

---------------

¶13

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR 680 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIR PERSON, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

¶15

3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶16

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V. MANOJ KUMAR.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶19

W.P.(C)No.2131 OF 2008

¶20

Dated this the 23^rd day of October, 2008

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner is a Panchayat. They are challenging the decision of the Government and the District Tourism Promotion Council not to entrust running of a Tourist Centre owned by the 2^nd respondent to the petitioner for management. According to the petitioner, the Government originally directed entrusting the management of the Tourist Centre to the Panchayat and later on they retracted from the same. The petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act for the reasons thereof and by Ext.P10 they were informed of the reasons. The petitioner submits that the reasons stated in Ext.P10 are not correct. The petitioner, therefore seeks a direction to the Government to re-consider the matter, after hearing the Panchayat.

¶23

I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition for the simple reason that the Government and the District Tourism Promotion Council, who are the owners of the Tourist Centre does not wish to entrust the management of the Tourist Centre to the

¶24

W.P.(c)No.2131/08

¶25

¶26

petitioner. The petitioner could not point out any provision of law by which the Panchayat can compell the Government and the 2^nd respondent to entrust the management of the Tourist Centre as of right to them. Therefore, the petitioner cannot as of right claim that the Tourist Centre should be handed over to the management.

¶27

In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶28

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶29

Acd

¶30

W.P.(c)No.2131/08 3

Adat Grama Panchayath v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adat Grama Panchayath v. the State of Kerala

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

Christopher Vs Jose Cherian and Others

T.v.Abdul Khader Vs the Fact

M/S.Raja Transports Vs Union of India

Union of India Vs M/S. Allure Impex, Mumbai

N.U.Sabu Vs Dist.Collector

Vasantha Antharjanam Vs the District Collector