Disposed

Vijayan.E. v. Kulathoor Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC7 Jun 2012WP(C)/6630/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the shifting of an Auyoorveda Dispensary from Virali to Pariyaram, alleging violation of meeting rules. Court held no resolution was passed at Virali and dispensary at Pariyaram was inaugurated, refusing to intervene in authority decisions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. No direction passed regarding Auyoorveda Dispensary location. Panchayath directed to take expeditious steps for Homeo/Sidha Auyoorveda Hospital at Virali.

Vijayan.E. Vs Kulathoor Grama Panchayat — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/17TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6630 of 2012 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

VIJAYAN.E., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ENOS, V.R.COTTAGE, ATTUPURAM, KULATHOOR VILLAGE, UCHAKKADA P.O.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

¶9

SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR

¶10

SRI.P.BIJIMON

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

1. KULATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KULATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KULATHOOR - 695 583.

¶13

2. SECRETARY, KULATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KULATHOOR P.O. - 695 583.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.R.GOPU R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.JAYAKUMAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

AMV

¶17

WP(C).No. 6630 of 2012 (C)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶20

P1. : COPY OF THE DECISION NO.IX DATED 31.07.2007 OF PARASSALA BLOCK PANCHAYATH.

¶21

P2. : COPY OF LETTER DATED 09.08.2010 OF LOCAL MLA.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶23

R2 (A)	:	COPY OF RESOLUTION VIDE NO.V (1) PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.11.2011.
R2 (B)	:	COPY OF THE G.O (MS) NO.59/2012/H & FWD DATED 16.02.2012.
R2(C)	:	COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.V (23) DATED 21.02.2012.
R2 (D)	:	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF FIRST RESPONDENT NO.A1-101/11 DATED 02.01.2012 i
R2 (E)	:	PROCEEDINGS OF DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER NO.E2-2146/2012 DATED 17.03.2012.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

AMV

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.6630 of 2012

¶29

Dated this the 07^th day of June, 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner is the resident of the first respondent Panchayath. In this writ petition, his complaint is that although, the respondent Panchayath had passed a resolution to establish an Auyoorveda Dispensary at Virali, that has subsequently been shifted to a place called Pariyaram. This according to the petitioner, in violation of the Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj(Procedure for Panchayath Meetings) Rules, 1995.

¶32

However, reading of the counter affidavit shows that the respondent Panchayath has denied of having taken any resolution as claimed by the petitioner. On the other hand, according to the respondent Panchayath, the decision was always to have the dispensary in question at Pariyaram where a building was also constructed for that purpose. It is also

¶33

stated the dispensary has already been inaugurated on 20.03.2012.

¶34

W.P.(C).No6630./2012

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

There is nothing on record to hold that any resolution has been passed by the respondent Panchayath as claimed by the petitioner. If that be so, Rule 11 cannot be relied on against the respondent Panchayath. That apart, according to the Panchayath the decision was always to have the Auyoorveda Dispensary at Pariyaram where it has been inaugurated. In such circumstances, this Court will not be justified in passing any direction as sought for by the petitioner. After all, location of an Auyoorveda Dispensary and such other facilities are matters to be decided by the respective authorities, who are familiar with the requirements of its beneficiaries.

¶37

Be that as it may, in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, respondents have stated that about a proposal to establish a Homeo Hospital and a Sidha Auyoorveda Hospital at Virali. It is directed that the Panchayath will take expeditious steps for making this proposal a reality.

¶38

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶40

Vijayan.E. v. Kulathoor Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan.E. v. Kulathoor Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indira Vasudevan Vs Sumeethan Pillai.R

Sukumara Menon Vs Thrissur Corporation

Muhammed Ali Vs Kavulumpara Grama Panchayath

K.P.Henry Vs the Corporation of Kochi

Ajith Kumar Vs the Mavelikkara Municipality

Kuriakose Vs the Principal Secretary