Allowed

Joboy Joseph v. the District Planning Committee

Kerala HC11 Mar 2019WP(C)/3096/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by Grama Panchayat ward members seeking mandamus to direct the District Collector to consider their representation challenging the Panchayat project report 2019-20. Court directed the Collector to decide expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation and take a decision within six weeks with notice to all affected parties.

Joboy Joseph Vs the District Planning Committee — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3096 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 JOBOY JOSEPH AGED 36 YEARS S/O.P.M.JOSEPH, PALAKUZHIYIL, ELENGAMANGALAM, ENATHU.P.O.-691526.

¶8

2 OLIKKULANGARA SURENDRAN AGED 43 YEARS

¶9

S/O.SANKARAN, KALLUVILA KADIKA, KAITHAPARAMBU.P.O., ENATHU-691526.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE SRI.R.SANJAY SANKAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE DISTRICT PLANNING COMMITTEE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689645

¶13

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

¶14

3 EZHAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAKODU.P.O.-691554.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI K.P.HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. SHAJ FOR R3

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 3096 of 2019

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioners, who are members of Ward Nos. 10 and 9 respectively of the third respondent Grama Panchayat has filed

¶22

this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent District Collector, who is the Secretary of the first respondent District Planning Committee to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 representation dated 31.12.2018, after hearing petitioners, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. Petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to interfere with the project report 2019-20 of the third respondent Grama Panchayat, as the same is in violation of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder and also in violation of sector-wise priority.

¶23

On 01.12.2019 when this writ petition came up for

¶24

admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent Grama Panchayat sought time to get instructions.

¶25

WP(C).No. 3096 of 2019

¶26

¶27

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent Grama Panchayat.

¶28

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for for petitioners would confine the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, as one directing consideration of Ext.P8 representation by the second respondent, who is the Secretary of the first respondent District Planning Committee.

¶29

Learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the second respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 representation, with notice to petitioners and also to other affected parties, including the third respondent Grama Panchayat, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶30

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent, who is the Secretary of the first respondent District Planning Committee, to consider Ext.P8 representation made by petitioners and take appropriate decision thereon, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to

¶31

WP(C).No. 3096 of 2019

¶32

¶33

petitioners and other affected parties, including the third respondent Grama Panchayat. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period

¶34

of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶35

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as to the merits of Ext.P8 representation made by petitioners and it is for the second respondent to take an appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law.

¶36

The petitioners shall also forward a copy of this writ petition to the second respondent, along with a certified copy of this judgment.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶39

DCS

¶40

WP(C).No. 3096 of 2019

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF REQ SUBMITTED BY THE THE 3RD RESPONDE	UEST DATED 31.3.2018 WRIT PETITIONERS BEFORE NT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT PANCH 24.12.2018.	MINUTES OF THE 3RD AYATH COMMITTEE DATED
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE 24.12.2018 SUBMI RESPONDENT.	LETTER OF DISSENT DATED TTED BEFORE THE 3RD
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE NO.LBA(HQ)11/1/8 DATED 17.10.2018 OFFICER, OFFICE	PROCEEDINGS A-95/2018-19/216, 217 ISSUED BY SENIOR AUDIT OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE 13.12.2018 PUBLI DAILY.	NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED SHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF LET 18.9.2018 ISSUED DIRECTOR.	TER NO.A2-1641/18 DATED BY THE PANCHAYATH DEPUTY
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE 26.12.2018 GIVEN ALONG WITH 5 OTH RESPONDENT.	REPRESENTATION DATED BY THE WRIT PETITIONERS ER MEMBERS BEFORE THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF REP 31.12.2018 SUBMI PETITIONERS BEFO IS THE SECRETARY	RESENTATION DATED TTED BY THE WRIT RE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WHO OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOWING THE ACCE 2ND RESPONDENT.	RECEIPT DATED 31.12.2018 PTANCE OF EXHIBIT P8 BY THE

Joboy Joseph v. the District Planning Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joboy Joseph v. the District Planning Committee

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

M/S.Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Ltd., Vs Regional Transport Officer

Vijayan Nair, Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

E.M.S.Charitable Society Vs Konni Grama Panchayat

M.M.Scaria Vs Raju R

K.D.Sudhakaran Vs Kottayam Municipality

C.K. Mohanan Vs the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority