Allowed

Mynagapally Grama Panchayat v. Kerala Lok Ayukta

Kerala HC10 Nov 2016WP(C)/2385/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the Kerala Lok Ayukta lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints against Panchayats under the KPR Act post-enactment of Section 271-O, setting aside the impugned order. The writ filed by the respondent seeking a direction to number a building was disposed of as unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Lok Ayukta set aside; other writ disposed of.

Mynagapally Grama Panchayat Vs Kerala Lok Ayukta — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2385 of 2008 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MYNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY, ITS SECRETARY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI. K.SIJU SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA LOK AYUKTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶12

2. ABU S, SHIBU MANZIL, MYNAGAPPALLY NORTH P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶13

3. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SURIN GEORGE IPE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2016,ALONG WITH WPC NO 2544/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.V.

¶17

WPC NO 2385 OF 2008:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN C NO 342/2005 ON THE FILE OF KERALA LOK AYUKTA.

¶21

P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA AS C.NO 342/2005.

¶22

P3: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26/11/2003.

¶23

P4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO 45787/E-3/04/LOC DATED 27/11/2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

P5: THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 9/2/2005 OF THE LOK AYUKTA IN C.NO.342/2005.

¶25

P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/1/2006 IN C.NO 342/2005 OF THE LOK AYUKTA.

¶26

P7: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC 10171/2006 OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF KERALA.

¶27

P8: COPY OF THE IA 8/2007 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA IN C.NO.342/2005.

¶28

P9: COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MYNAGAPPALLY, DATED 26/6/2007.

¶29

P10: COPY OF THE ACTION-TAKEN REPORT PREPARED AND FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA ON 31/12/2007.

¶30

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

K. Vinod Chandran, J

W.P.(C) Nos.2385 of 2008-H & 2544 of 2008-C

¶37

¶38

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2016

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2385 of 2008 is the Panchayat, who challenge the order of the Lok Ayukta in a complaint raised by the 2^nd respondent against the orders of the Panchayat alleging violation of the provisions of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [for brevity “KPR Act”]. The contention taken up by the Panchayat is that the Lok Ayukta ceases to have jurisdiction with respect to a complaint with regard to a 'public servant' or 'a Local Self Government Institution' after the enactment of Section 271-O of the KPR Act, as has been laid down in Jose V. Jacob v. Thalayolaparambu Grama Panchayat [2016

¶41

(1) KLT 362].

¶42

In the light of the above provision in the statute and the afore-cited decision, the 2^nd respondent ought to have raised the complaint either before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions or before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government

¶43

WP(C) Nos.2385/2008 & - 2 - 2544/2008.

¶44

Institutions. In such circumstance, the impugned order of the Lok Ayukta, being Exhibit P1, has to be set aside. I do so.

¶45

The 2^nd respondent in W.P.(C) No.2385 of 2008 has filed W.P.(C) No.2544 of 2008 seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to assign number to the building consisting of three shop rooms in Mynagapally Village in Kollam District.

¶46

This Court does not see any reason to issue any direction as prayed for in W.P.(C) No.2544 of 2008, since the petitioner's construction was directed to be stopped as per Exhibit P3 produced in W.P.(C) No.2385 of 2008. The directions of the Lok Ayukta have already been set aside for reason of there being no jurisdiction.

¶47

If the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2544 of 2008 has completed the construction, it would be proper for the Panchayat to initiate proceedings against the petitioner, if it is so desired, for violation of Section 220(b) of the KPR Act. The said proceedings shall be with notice to the petitioner.

¶48

WP(C) Nos.2385/2008 & - 3 - 2544/2008.

¶49

W.P.(C) No.2385 of 2008 is allowed. W.P.(C) No.2544 of

¶50

2008 is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

K.Vinod Chandran Judge

¶53

vku/-

¶54

[ true copy ]

Mynagapally Grama Panchayat v. Kerala Lok Ayukta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mynagapally Grama Panchayat v. Kerala Lok Ayukta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suja John Vs Mohandas

Mohammed Niyas Vs the Income Tax Commissioner

James K.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Albin Antony Vs State of Kerala and 2 Others

Retnabhai Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram.

C.K.Poulose Vs the State of Kerala