Partly allowed

President, Kuzhuppilly Grama Panchayat v. Kunjukunjamma

Kerala HC15 Nov 2012CRP/433/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CRP No. 433 of 2012, the Court addressed the failure to construct a granite stone embankment along Arangilpadam Chemmeenkettu. The Panchayath undertook to complete the project in the 2012-2013 budget year. The Court directed the Panchayath to complete the exercise and allowed the respondent to approach the Ombudsman.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Panchayath to complete the embankment construction in 2012-2013 and allowed the respondent to approach the Ombudsman.

President, Kuzhuppilly Grama Panchayat Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/24TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 433 of 2012 () ---------------------EP.196/2011 IN P.L.O.P. NO. 63/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONERS/ JUDGMENT DEBTORS: -------------------------------------------------------------

¶7

1. THE PRESIDENT, KUZHUPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

¶8

AYYAMPILLY P.O, 682501

¶9

2. THE SECRETARY,

¶10

KUZHUPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AYYAMPILLY P.O, 682501

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.K.V.GEORGE SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDER:

¶13

KUNJUKUNJAMMA, W/O THOMAS, OOKKAN VEEDU, AYYAMPILLY KARA KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682501

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR BY ADV. SMT.V.SHYLAJA

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRP.No. 433 of 2012 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶19

A1: COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 10.09.2005 IN PLOP NO.63/2005 PASSED BY LOK ADALATH, NORTH PARAVUR.

¶20

A2: COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.196 OF 2011 IN P.L.O.P. NO.63/2005 DATED 03.09.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.

¶21

A3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION DATED 16.11.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.196 OF 2011 IN P.L.O.P NO.63/2005.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶27

C.R.P No.433 of 2012

¶28

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2012

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

An order passed in execution of an award passed by the Lok Adalath in relation to the construction of an embankment by granite stones is under challenge. The embankment is to be constructed along the sides of Arangilpadam Chemmeenkettu. The award records the report of the Panchayath that the embankment would be constructed during the year 2006-2007. The period has expired and the budgetary allotments for this year (2011-2012) has been exhausted.

¶31

The Panchayath undertook to include the construction of the embankment in the projects for the year 2012-2013. This is recorded. I direct the Panchayath to complete the exercise as undertaken during the year 2012-2013 itself. Every endeavour shall be made to obtain budgetary allotments to complete the construction of embankment. The respondent is at liberty to move the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions in case there is omission on the part of the Panchayath in this regard.

¶32

The impugned order is therefore set aside under these circumstances.

¶33

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶34

mns/

President, Kuzhuppilly Grama Panchayat v. Kunjukunjamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

President, Kuzhuppilly Grama Panchayat v. Kunjukunjamma

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

Baby Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Branch Manager, Federal Bank Ltd. Vs K.S.Firos

Mathew Vs Paily

Philomina Vs Abdul Rahiman

Nss Karayogam Vs Vijayakumar

Sasi Damodaran Vs Sajeev v. Jose