Disposed

K.R.Vijayakumar v. the Pandalam Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC17 Jun 2022WP(C)/8750/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Government order staying auction proceedings based on a Panchayat's decision. The Court held the Government had jurisdiction under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act to cancel or suspend Panchayat decisions. Petitioner was directed to finalize proceedings within two months with a hearing opportunity. Quality is thin.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal Secretary to finalise proceedings under the Government order within two months, providing hearing opportunities to all concerned.

K.R.Vijayakumar Vs the Pandalam Grama… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 8750 OF 2014

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.R.VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 47 YEARS S/O. K K RAMA KRISHNA KURUP,KORUNDIPPALLY,MODIYOORKKONAM P.O,TYHOTTAKKONAM,PANDALAM,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN 689 501 BY ADVS. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE PANDALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH PANDALAM,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PIN 689 501

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY PANDALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,PANDALAM,PATHANAMTHITTA PIN 689 501

¶11

3 THE PRESIDENT PANDALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA PIN 689 501

¶12

4 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,GOVEERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR

¶13

R4 - SRI.ARAVIND.V.MATHEW,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) No.8750 of 2014

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 17^th day of June 2022

¶19

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by Exhibit P6 order passed by the Principal Secretary to Local Self Government (DB) Department, Thiruvananthapuram dated 25.02.2014. The order of the Government reads thus:

¶20

“I am to invite your attention to the reference cited and to inform you that all further proceedings including auction pursuant to the notice 2^nd cited is hereby stayed until disposal of the petition submitted by Sri.Ahammed Basheer and others.”

¶21

The basic contention advanced by the petitioner is that Exhibit P6 order is passed by the State Government on the basis of a representation submitted by one Ahammed Basheer dated 12.2.2014 and the Government is not vested with any powers under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to stay a proceeding or decision taken by the Panchayat. But fact remains in Exhibit P6 Government Order, reference No.1 is decision No.111(2) of the Pandalam Grama Panchayat dated 4.2.2014.Therefore, it is clear that there is challenge made to the decision taken by the Grama Panchayat.

¶22

W.P.(C) No.8750 of 2014

¶23

¶24

The sole question remains to be considered is whether the Government is vested with any powers to entertain a challenge against the decision taken by the Panchayat to conduct fresh auction in respect of the shopping complex owned by him.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, Sri.Aravind V. Mathew, Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶26

Going by the pleadings put forth in the writ petition, one thing is clear that the challenge is the power vested with the Government to pass Exhibit P6. As I have pointed out above, it is not the representation of Ahammed Basheer alone is before the Government but the decision No.111(2) dated 4.2.2014 of the Pandalam Grama Panchayat is under challenge. Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is a complete answer to the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, which reads thus:

¶27

“[191. Power of cancellation and suspension of resolutions

¶28

etc. - (1) Government may either suo moto or, on a reference by President, Secretary or a member, or on a petition received from a citizen, cancel or very a resolution passed or a decision taken by the panchayat if in their opinion such decision or resolution –

¶29

(a) is not legally passed or taken; or

¶30

(b) is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or any other law or its abuse; or

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No.8750 of 2014

¶33

¶34

harmony or may lead to riot or quarrel; or

¶35

(d) is in violation of the directions or provisions of grant issued by Government in the matter of implementing the plans, schemes or programmes.

¶36

(2) Before cancelling or amending a resolution or decision as per subsection (1), the Government may refer the matter for consideration either of the ombudsman constituted under section 271 G or the tribunal constituted under section 271S and the ombudsman or the tribunal, as the case may be; after giving the panchayat an opportunity of being head, send a report to the Government with its conclusions and the Government may, on its basis cancel, amend or confirm the resolution or decision.

¶37

(3) If another remedy is available to the petitioner through the tribunal under section 276, the Government shall not consider any petition for cancelling or amending any resolution or decision of the Panchayat.

¶38

(4) If Government consider that a resolution or decision of the Panchayat has to be cancelled or amended as per sub-section (1) it may suspend such resolution or decision temporarily and may direct the panchayat to defer its implementation till the final disposal after the completion of the procedure under sub-section (2).] “

¶39

Therefore, in my considered opinion, against a decision taken by the

¶40

Grama Panchayat the President, Secretary or a Member or any citizen, the Government is vested with powers to cancel or vary a resolution passed or a decision taken by the Panchayat, if in their opinion, such decision or resolution

¶41

is tainted with the legal infirmities prescribed under section 191 of Act, 1994.

¶42

W.P.(C) No.8750 of 2014

¶43

¶44

Taking into account the said aspect, it cannot be said that Exhibit P6 order passed by the Government in any pending proceedings is totally illegal or without jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, it is only appropriate that the writ petition is disposed of with a suitable direction to the Government, especially due to the fact that Exhibit P6 order passed by the Government is stayed by this Court as early as on 8.12.2015.

¶45

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 4^th respondent i.e., the Principal Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P6, after providing an opportunity of participation and hearing to all concerned, at the earliest and at any rate within two months from the the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

smv

W.P.(C) No.8750 of 2014

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8750/2014

¶53

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶54

EXHIBITP1 THE TENDER NTICE PUBLISHED BY THE PANCHAYATH DATED 22-02-2014 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11-02-2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1202-2014 SUBMITTED TO THE MINISTER FOR PANCHAYATH AND SOCIAL JUSTICE EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE DATED 17-022014 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYATH POSTPONING THE AUCTION DATED 6-3-2014 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 25-02-2014 ISSUED THROPUGH THE 4TH RESPONDENT

K.R.Vijayakumar v. the Pandalam Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Vijayakumar v. the Pandalam Grama Panchayath

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

S. Venkitachalam Vs Vishnu Nath IAS

Ally Sunny Vs District Collector

A.P.Joseph Vs Veliyannur Gramapanchayat

Roy C.A. Vs N. Geetha

Rajesh.v.R Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Reni Biju Vs the Kottayam Muncipality