Allowed

Santha v. Director, Kudumbasree Mission

Kerala HC10 Jun 2014WP(C)/1136/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the adjournment of elections to a Community Development Society due to alleged political reasons. Court directed the District Collector to dispose of a pending representation within three months after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to dispose of the petitioners representation within three months after affording an opportunity of being heard.

Santha Vs Director, Kudumbasree Mission — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 1136 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SANTHA.P., W/O SURESH KUMAR, PAMBATH HOUSE, POOLAMANNA P.O., PANDIKKAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SMT.P.A.SHEEJA SMT.MEENA.A.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DIRECTOR, KUDUMBASREE MISSION, TRIDA BUILDINGS, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.

¶11

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶12

3. DISTRICT CO-ORDINATOR, KUDUMBASREE BAVAN, CIVIL STATION, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM- 676 505.

¶13

4. JOINT BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK PANCHAYATH KALIKAVU (RETURNING OFFICER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, PALAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PIN-678 001.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V.ELIAS

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C)NO.1136/2012

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE VOTERS LIST DATED 28-12-2011 PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF LIST SHOWING SCHEDULE OF ELECTION OF AREA DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY OF PANDIKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 9-1-2012 SHOWING THE ADJOURNMENT OF ELECTION OF AREA DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY TO WARD NO.8 TO 10-1-2012.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11-1-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J

¶29

W.P.(C) No.1136 of 2012

¶30

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2014

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner has approached this Court apprehending that the 4^th respondent is proposing to conduct elections to the Community Development Society in Pandikkad Grama Panchayat of Malappuram District overlooking Ext.P1 final list of voters.

¶33

The petitioner alleges that he is a resident of Pandikkad Grama Panchayat and he is an elected representative of the Amritha Ayalkootam in Ward No.8 of the said Panchayat. The State has registered an organization by name Kudumbasree with the Minister of Local Self Government as Chairman. The primary unit of the Kudumbasree is Ayalkoottam. Area Development Society at the Ward level and Community Development Society at the Panchayath

¶34

WPC No.1136/2012 2

¶35

level are the other units. The members of Area Development Society will be elected by the respective Ayalkoottams in that ward.

¶36

The petitioner alleges that she was enlisted in Ext.P1 voters list published by the 4^th respondent who is the returning officer. The election was scheduled to be held on 8.1.2012. However, the meeting has been adjourned. According to the petitioner, she has come to understand that the meeting was adjourned to include additional voters to Ext.P1 voters list. This, according to the petitioner, is due to political reasons. She filed Ext.P4 representation before the second respondent.

¶37

Today when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P4 representation has not been disposed of so far and the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is given to the second respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 representation within a time limit.

¶38

WPC No.1136/2012 3

¶39

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to dispose of Ext.P4 representation with a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶40

Sd/-A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

css/ true copy

¶43

P.S.TO JUDGE

Santha v. Director, Kudumbasree Mission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santha v. Director, Kudumbasree Mission

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

Pradeep.P Vs General Manager

Siby Jose Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Police

Anitha.K.a Vs State of Kerala

E.P.Eswaran Namboothiri Vs State of Kerala

P.Mohanan Pillai Vs the Manickal Grama Panchayat

R. Lathakumari Vs State of Kerala