Disposed

Pattambi Grama Panchayath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 May 2016WP(C)/16539/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court refused to interfere with the respondent Government's policy circular (Ext.P2) preventing Panchayats from using maintenance funds for electricity charges in beneficiary-managed water schemes. The Court held the matter was a policy decision and merely closed the petition with a liberty to represent for an exception.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed with a liberty to make a representation for the utilisation of funds.

Pattambi Grama Panchayath Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 16539 of 2006 (R)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PATTAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶8

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT,, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. THE SECRETARY, DECENTRALISATION PLANNING COMMITTEE,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

R,R1 TO 3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 16539 of 2006 (R)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND SERVED ON THE PETITIONER MUCH LATER DATED 2.11.05

¶20

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 23.3.06

¶21

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 15.05.2006.

¶22

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶27

===================== W.P.(C) No.16539 of 2006 - R

¶28

======================

¶29

Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner is aggrieved with Exts.P1 and P2 orders passed by the Government, which is in the realm of policy and it is trite that this Court would not interfere with such policy. In fact Ext.P1 stands substantially modified by Ext.P2. In Ext.P1, the Government had taken a policy to direct the Local Self Government Institution (L.S.G.I) not to spend money from the core fund of the Panchayat to remit the electricity charges for supply of water. The same was modified in Ext.P2; which permitted Panchayats to expend money for meeting the electricity charges for supply of water from the Maintenance grant, general charges grant, or the core fund of the Panchayats; the latter meaning the revenues earned by the Panchayat as per

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C) No.16539 of 2006 - R

¶34

the various statutes.

¶35

The restriction in Ext.P2 is only with respect to the specific schemes implemented by the Panchayat on peoples' participation, wherein, it is directed that the beneficiaries should bear the charges for such water supply. The petitioner Panchayat apprehends that even schemes, which are intended for the marginalised communities would have to be carried out with their participation. The said contention of the petitioner is belied by the detailed counter affidavit filed by the Government.

¶36

The Government in its counter affidavit, has

¶37

supported the modified circular on the ground that while the Kerala Water Authority takes up rural water supply schemes, the Single Village Panchayat schemes were to be taken up by the L.S.G.I. Such Single Village Panchayat Water Supply Scheme of Kerala Water Authority has also been decided to be entrusted to the Village Panchayat in a phased manner. The implementation of the world bank supported Jalanidhi Water Supply Programmes in the rural areas was with participation of the

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C) No.16539 of 2006 - R

¶40

public. A similar methodology is said to have been followed under the Government of India supported Sector Reforms Project in the districts of Kollam and Kasaragod. Under the Jalanidhi project, the benefited population contributes 15%of the capital cost with subsidies granted for the SC/ST. Under Sector Reforms, the capital contribution is 10%. The schemes are also said to be operated and maintained by the community benefited by the scheme.

¶41

The above approach has been specifically taken by the Government for wider distribution of drinking water and to ensure that all the residents of the Panchayat are provided with such drinking water. The State Government is also said to have issued policy guidelines pursuant to Ext.P2 in the following lines.

¶42

“The Government Circular dated 23.03.2006, objected to by the Panchayat does not ban meeting of operation and maintenance cost by the Panchayat totally. It only directs Panchayats not to pay the operation and maintenance charges in cases where beneficiary groups have been formed and the operation and maintenance entrusted to them. If one Panchayat goes ahead and decides to meet the operation and maintenance charges of community manged schemes, naturally there will be a demand

¶43

¶44

W.P.(C) No.16539 of 2006 - R

¶45

from all the beneficiary groups all over Kerala and it will result in unaffordable operation and maintenance costs affecting future investments in rural water supply and also lead to viable inefficiency. Therefore the policy direction needs to be upheld in the larger interest of achieving universal coverage of protected water supply at the earliest. If not there is every danger of a viable model accepted by National and State policies getting destroyed”.

¶46

The issue agitated being in the realm of policy, this

¶47

Court would not cause any interference to the circulars aforementioned. However, the petitioner would be entitled to make a representation before the Government regarding the utilisation of funds, which could be considered by the Government considering the fact situation existing in the petitioner Panchayat.

¶48

The writ petition would stand closed with the above reserved liberty. No costs.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

JUDGE

SB/31/05/2016

// true copy //

P.A to Judge

Pattambi Grama Panchayath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pattambi Grama Panchayath v. 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

Namitha Bhas Vs the M.G.University

M/S.Three Star Granites Vs the Chairman, Seiac, Kerala

P.M.Elias Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed @ Bapputty Vs the District Collector

Joseph Thomas Vs Local Level Monitoring Committee

James Vs the Local Level Monitoring Committee