Dismissed

M.C.Pappan and Another v. Secretary, Mundakayam Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC2 Mar 2017WP(C)/35357/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the allocation of shop rooms by Mundakayam Grama Panchayat, claiming violations of SC/ST reservation norms. The court found the Panchayat had allotted 3 out of 24 available rooms to SC/ST members, satisfying the 10% rule, and dismissed the petition by an unregistered association.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the Panchayat had already allotted 10% reservation in available rooms, and the association lacked standing to claim for individual members.

M.C.Pappan and Another Vs Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 35357 of 2007 (H)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. M.C.PAPPAN, S/O.CHOTHY, MYLAN OLICKAL, VELANILAM P.O., KOOTTICKAL, MUNDAKAYAM.

¶8

2. AMBEDKAR INTEGRATED MISSION SOCIETY

¶9

(AIMS), REG.NO.K. 398/95, H.O.MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT P.O.JOSHY.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. THE SECRETARY, MUNDAKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MUNDAKAYAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 513.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

WP(C).No. 35357 of 2007 (H)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.	P1:	COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.267/90SC/ST/DD/ DATED 4.5.90.
EXT.	P2:	COPY OF NOTICE DATED 12.11.2007, BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.	P3:	COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 23.11.2007 BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.	P4:	TRUE (ADDITIONAL) COPIES OF GO DATED 8.5.90, 10.5.91, 12.8.96.
EXT.	P5:	COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT CAME IN THE DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 9.2.2008.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.R1A:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DECISION OF PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE DATED 29.7.2000.
EXT.R1B:	THE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 12.3.2009 ISSUED BY THE MUNDAKKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
	//TRUE COPY//
	P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/

¶23

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶24

============================== W.P.(C)No.35357 of 2007

¶25

============================== Dated this, the 02^nd day of March, 2017.

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking for directions that 10% of the shop rooms, stalls etc., granted on rent, lease or licence by the Panchayat, be reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities.

¶28

The first petitioner appears to have been an aspirant for a room and the second petitioner is stated to be an unregistered Association of persons belonging to the SC/ST communities. I am told by the learned counsel for the Panchayat that the first petitioner was allotted a bunk and that he is now no more. The learned counsel for the petitioners though agrees that the first petitioner is no more, but asserts that he was not allotted a bunk while he was alive. As regards the second petitioner is concerned, it is an Association who are now claiming rights for all their members. They are aggrieved

¶29

W.P.(C)No.35357 of 2007 : 2 :

¶30

because, the Mundakayam Grama Panchayat while granting on lease the rooms available in 3 shopping complexes, constructed by them, did not allot enough rooms to members of SC/ST communities, in terms of the above mentioned rule. They have therefore, filed this writ petition seeking certain reliefs.

¶31

I have heard Smt.P.K.Santhamma, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Mundakayam Grama Panchayat.

¶32

I notice that there were several disputes between the parties even some of which arose while the writ petition was pending. Initially, the Panchayat took a position that 6 persons belonging to the SC/ST category were allotted bunks, but it was later revealed that they had made such allotment only to 3 persons. These lead to several proceedings by way of interim orders by this Court. Finally, the Mundakayam Grama Panchayat has filed a statement, where they say, they have placed the correct facts. According to them, the Panchayat has constructed 3 shopping complexes. The first one has 25

¶33

W.P.(C)No.35357 of 2007 : 3 :

¶34

rooms, the second has 24 rooms and the third has 16 rooms. They say that in the first shopping complex, all the 25 rooms were allotted to 25 persons who were earlier running businesses in make shift bunks, in order to rehabilitate them. According to them, in the second shopping complex, out of 24 rooms, 3 were allotted to members of SC/ST communities. As regards the third shopping complex is concerned, they say that none of the rooms in that complex had been given to private persons, but that it is exclusively granted in tenancy to the Village Extension Office and to the BSNL for Telecom service.

¶35

I see that the pleadings would reveal that only

¶36

24 rooms were available with the Panchayat for allotment for the public, since all the rooms in the first complex were used to rehabilitate persons who were earlier accommodated in bunks and all the rooms in the third complex have been reserved for Government agencies.

¶37

In such circumstances, the only question that is now alive before this Court is whether the Mundakayam Grama Panchayat has acted fairly in the process of

¶38

W.P.(C)No.35357 of 2007 : 4 :

¶39

allotment of rooms to persons belonging to the SC/ST communities. I see that the Panchayat has allotted 3 rooms out of the available 24 to such persons. Obviously, therefore, the mandate of Rule 10 of the Rules have been taken care of stand satisfied. The learned counsel for the petitioners Smt.P.K.Santhamma contends that, in addition to these rooms, there are 25 other bunks under the control of the Panchayat and that the members of the SC/ST communities are entitled to have the reservation of 10% in those also. The learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat, however, submits that these bunks have been occupied from the year 1985 and that there is no vacancy there at all. I am not sure therefore, whether the petitioners would be now justified in staking claim over these bunks.

¶40

Since I see that the 2^nd petitioner is only an association, I am of the view that they cannot maintain any of the reliefs that has been sought for in the writ petition. If any individual member belonging to SC/ST are desirous of making a claim to the bunks or to the

¶41

W.P.(C)No.35357 of 2007 : 5 :

¶42

rooms, it would be left to them to make such claim. I do not think that an association can be allowed to act on their behalf without legally obtained competence or without specific authority. I propose not to make any further orders in this writ petition for also the reason, as I have already noticed, that the Panchayat has already allotted more than 10% to the members of the SC/ST communities in the available rooms.

¶43

Therefore, in such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶46

Bb/13/03/2017

¶47

[True copy]

¶48

P.A to Judge

M.C.Pappan and Another v. Secretary, Mundakayam Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C.Pappan and Another v. Secretary, Mundakayam Grama Panchayath

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

Kozhuvanal Grama Panchayath Vs M.a.Jose

K.Geetha Vs State of Kerala

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Anr.

Beena Joseph Vs State Bank of India and Others

S.Balasubramanian Vs the Director General

Teeson Treads Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala