Allowed

The Kumily Grama Panchayath v. the Tribunal for Local Self Government

Kerala HC18 Aug 2016WP(C)/7491/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Honourable Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Kumily Grama Panchayath to expunge observations declaring the Panchayath Secretary's conduct as mal administration from a Tribunal order, noting the accused lacks jurisdiction to pass such findings without Ombudsman proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Expunging the last sentence in paragraph 10 of Ext.P7 order regarding the observation of mal administration.

The Kumily Grama Panchayath Vs the Tribunal for Local Self Government — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/27TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7491 of 2010 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE KUMILY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUMILY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. KURIAN SCARIA, PUTHIYA PURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, ATTAPPALLAM, KUMILY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶12

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.JOHN

¶13

SRI.BENNY CHERIAN SRI.ASISH K.JOHN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 7491 of 2010 (J)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2/2/09 IN WPC.2253/09 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶20

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE 11/3/09 OF THE PANCHAYATH

¶21

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 12/3/09 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH

¶22

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6/3/09 OF THE OVERSEER

¶23

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/4/09 IN APPEAL NO.19809 OF THE R1

¶24

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DASTED 6/7/09 OF THE PANCHAYATH CANCELLING THE BUILDING PERMIT

¶25

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/8/09 OF THE R1

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.V.ASHA J.

--------------------------------------------

¶33

W.P.(C) No.7491 of 2010

¶34

--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18^th day of August, 2016

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The Kumily Grama Panchayath has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the observations made by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, in paragraph 10 of Ext.P7 order passed by it in the order dated 27.08.2009 in Appeal No.607 of 2009. In Paragraph 10 of the order the Tribunal observed as follows:

¶37

“Pages 97 to 111 of the file produced by respondents is copy of the order dated 28.04.2009 in Appeal 198/2009 referred to in the impugned order. The procedure to be followed under Section 235W of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and the necessity of a speaking order giving reasons as to the contentions raised in the reply etc are made clear in paragraph 8 of the said order. But the impugned order is passed in such a manner, without complying with the directions given in the order in Appeal 198/2009, indicating that the conduct of the Secretary is apparently mal administration regarding which the affected parties may initiate proper proceedings before the Hon'ble Ombudsman.”

¶38

According to the Panchayath, the observation made by the Tribunal to the effect that the conduct of the

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C) No.7491 of 2010

¶41

Secretary is apparently 'mal administration', is one made beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal which is constituted under Section 271F of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994. Secondly, it is pointed out that this observation is made without hearing the Secretary regarding his conduct. Even though, the Secretary was a party before the Tribunal, the appeal under consideration was against the order issued for demolishing the building of the appellant, who is the second respondent in this writ petition.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

¶43

It is seen that the Tribunal has, while directing to re-consider the order impugned in the appeal made observations regarding the conduct of the Secretary that it amounted to 'mal administration'. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 'mal administration' is not a matter which comes within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions constituted under Section 271(F) of the Kerala

¶44

W.P.(C) No.7491 of 2010

¶45

Panchayath Raj Act, 1994. The expression 'mal administration' is defined therein. A finding as to 'mal administration' is to be arrived at in the proceedings before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institution, as provided under Section 271J(1)(ii) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994.

¶46

Under the above circumstance, I find that observations made by the Tribunal in paragraph 10 of the order especially the last sentence was unnecessary and without authority. Hence the last sentence in paragraph

¶47

10 of the order Ext.P7 will stand expunged.

¶48

The writ petition is allowed.

¶49

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶50

The Kumily Grama Panchayath v. the Tribunal for Local Self Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kumily Grama Panchayath v. the Tribunal for Local Self Government

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

C.Kunamallika Vs Chinna Swamy

Pathanamthitta Dist.Co-Op.Bank Ltd. Vs M.Abdul Rasheed

T.v.Jayan Vs State of Kerala and Others

Kennan.v.R. Vs National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Lambodharan Vs District Collector

M/S.Southern Tech Engineering Contractor Vs State of Kerala