Dismissed

Sachidhanandha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jan 2019WP(C)/5737/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Government's refusal to reconsider a request for forming a new Grama Panchayath based on linguistic grounds. The Court held that delimitation and formation of Panchayaths are exclusively within the Government's policy domain and refused to direct reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to submit opinions when a formal proposal is mooted by the Government.

Sachidhanandha Gopalakrishnan Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

W.P(C) No.5737 of 2015 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 8TH MAGHA, 1940

¶6

WP(C).No. 5737 of 2015

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SACHIDHANANDHA GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, SECRETARY, MEENAKSHIPURAM LIFT IRRIGATION FARMER'S ASSOCIATION, MEENAKSHIPURAM,PIN-678 533, MOOLATHARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN HARIHARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LINGUISTIC MINORITIES, RAJAJI BHAVAN, E WING, 2ND FLOOR, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600090, TAMILNADU.

¶14

BY ADVS. SR.G.P.SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V.G.ARUN, J.

¶17

------------------------------------W.P(C) No.5737 of 2015

¶18

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2019

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The Writ Petition is filed seeking issue of writ of a mandamus directing the first respondent, State of Kerala, to reconsider Ext P2 request made by the petitioner for

¶21

the formation of a new Grama Panchayath at Meenakshipuram, by taking portion of areas comprised in Ward Nos.8 to 12 of Perumatty village. The claim of the petitioner is on the ground that formation of the new Panchayath is necessary for the welfare of the predominantly Tamil speaking population of over 30 thousand, residing within the area comprised in Ward Nos.8 to 12 of Perumatty Grama Panchayath. It was with

¶22

this purpose that the petitioner had submitted Ext P2 representation. The Government vide Ext P3 communication informed the petitioner that his request cannot be considered, since, as per Section 4(2) (a) & (b)

¶23

of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act it was not possible to undertake the delimitation process during the tenure of an elected committee in the Panchayath concerned. The

¶24

W.P(C) No.5737 of 2015 3

¶25

learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 4 and contends that the embargo, as pointed out in Ext P3, is not applicable, with respect to the request for formation of a new Panchayath.

¶26

In my opinion, delimitation of Panchayaths, including formation of a new Panchayath is exclusively within the policy domain of the Government. This would be evident from a reading of Section 4 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994. Section 4(2) of the Act empowers the Government to increase the area, diminish the area, alter the headquarters or alter the name of a Panchayath, at the request of the Panchayath concerned, or after consultation with the Panchayath and after previous publication of the proposal by Notification. If any such proposal is notified, it would be open for the interested persons to submit their opinion. On the other hand, no person can demand that a new Panchayath should be formed to cater to the needs of a particular class of persons. In such circumstances, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted.

¶27

The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to submit his opinion, as and when

¶28

W.P(C) No.5737 of 2015 4

¶29

a proposal is mooted by the Government in terms of the procedure prescribed under Section 4 of the Kerala Panchayath

Raj Act.

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

cms

W.P(C) No.5737 of 2015 5

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES IN THE NAME OF MEENAKSHIPURAM LIFT IRRIGATION FARMERS ASSOCIATION.

¶37

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATQED 23/08/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATD 03/09/2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶38

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO. 3/13(1)/2014 LSGD DATED 25/01/2015 PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA INFORMING ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO FORM 70 GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶39

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/01/2015 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶40

RESPONDENTS EXTS

¶41

EXT R2(A) COPY OF LETTER NO.5/1/2015-72 DTD 3.3.2015 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR LINGUISTIC MINORITIES.

¶42

/TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE

¶43

cms

Sachidhanandha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachidhanandha Gopalakrishnan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpalatha E.V. Vs the Kerala Agricultural University

P.S.Indu Vs State of Kerala

Thamban K. Vs Payyannur Muncipality

Shylaja T.P. & Another Vs Mahatma Gandhi University and Another

Rinshad Abdulla Vs Sibga Institute of Advanced Studies, Rep. by Its Principal

Pushpa.S. Vs Mahatma Gandhi University and Another