Allowed

Gopi v. the Secretary, Koovapady Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC23 Jul 2024WP(C)/40027/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Beneficiary committee members challenged recovery notices over a drinking water project allegedly left incomplete. The court, following its earlier decisions in connected 2013 writ petitions, held the project was completed but destroyed by anti-social elements, and quashed the recovery orders.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P8 letter and Ext.P9 demand notices quashed; writ petition allowed.

Gopi Vs the Secretary, Koovapady Grama Panchayath — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2024 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 40027 OF 2015

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 GOPI

¶8

AGED 58 YEARS

¶9

S/O.AYYAPPAN, VALLIMATTOM HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE,
CHELAMATTOM KARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶10

2 MUHAMMADALI

¶11

AGED 50 YEARS

¶12

S/O.BEERAN, PALLATHUKUDY HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE,
CHELAMATTOM KARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY

¶15

SRI.R.PARAMESWARA IYER

¶16

RESPONDENT/S:

¶17

1 THE SECRETARY, KOOVAPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH KOOVAPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOOVAPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KOOVAPADY P.O., (VIA) PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶18

2 KOOVAPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOOVAPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KOOVAPADY P.O., (VIA) PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶19

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

4 DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH PANCHAYATH DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

5 KAREEM AGED 55 YEARS

¶22

S/O.BEERAVU, KARAKUNNAN HOUSE, RAYANPURAM BHAGAM,
CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, VALLAM KARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶23

6 DEVASIKUTTY S/O.KURIAN, EDAPULAVAM HOUSE, CHELAMATTAM VILLAGE, VALLAM KARA, OKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.

¶24

7 PAPPACHAN S/O.KURIAN, EDAPULAVAM HOUSE, CHELAMATTAM VILLAGE, VALLAM KARA, OKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.

¶25

 W.P.(C) No.40027 of 2015

¶26

¶27

8 OKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, P.O.OKKAL, PERUMBAVOOR (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶28

9 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUMBAVOOR, P.O.PERUMBAVOOR.

¶29

10 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD.

¶30

11 REGIONAL ENGINEER KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, ATHANI P.O., ALUVA - 683 585.

¶31

12 KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE, 'KISSAN JYOTHI', FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶32

13 TALUK TAHSILDAR KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.

¶33

14 THE VILLAGE OFFICER. CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHELAMATTOM, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶34

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.R.RENJITH
SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR
SRI.TONY THOMAS INCHIPARAMBIL

¶35

OTHER PRESENT:

¶36

R3,4,9.10,13,14 - SRI.E.G.GORDEN,SENIOR GOVERNMENT
PLEADER

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

 W.P.(C) No.40027 of 2015

¶39

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

(Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2024)

¶42

The petitioners are the members of a beneficiary
committee formed in Koovapady Grama Panchayath for the
execution of drinking water project. The grievance
projected in the writ petition is that Ext.P8 letter
and Ext.P9 demand notice were issued ordering recovery
against the petitioners in the light of alleged non
completion of the project entrusted by the committee.

¶43

2. When the matter is taken up today, it is

¶44

stated that the matter pertains to the panchayath has
already been taken up and decided by this court in
W.P.(C) Nos.16649, 17365, 21301, 23811 and 26819 of
2013. In those cases, the matter was considered at
length. It is clear that the action initiated by the
panchayath against the petitioners therein are not
justifiable in the light of the facts that the project
undertaken by the petitioners was completed and it was
destructed by anti social elements and criminal
proceedings initiated against them. In that light,
those writ petitions preferred by the other members of
the committee has been allowed by quashing the
impugned orders.

¶45

 W.P.(C) No.40027 of 2015

¶46

¶47

I do not find any different situation in the case
of Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 orders which is also in similar
nature. So I propose to quash the same in the light of
decisions taken by this Court in judgment dated
12.01.2023 in W.P.(C) No.16649 of 2013 and connected
matters.

¶48

This writ petition is allowed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

P.M.MANOJ JUDGE

¶51

SM

¶52

 W.P.(C) No.40027 of 2015

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40027/2015

¶55

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT P1.`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE` `CONVENER HEREIN BEFORE THE 9TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P2.`	`TURE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 9TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3.`	`TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME 63/2008 ON` `THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE` `COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.`
`EXHIBIT P4.`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN` `C.C.NO.1088/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL` `FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.`
`EXHIBIT P5.`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF` `POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 05.02.2008.`
`EXHIBIT P6.`	`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORD BY THE` `POLICE DURING THE INVESTIGATION FROM THE` `CONVENER.`
`EXHIBIT P7.`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY VOUCHER CUM INVOICE` `DATED 30.06.1999 ISSUED BY THE 11TH` `RESPONDENT DATED 03.03.1999.`
`EXHIBIT P8.`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO`
	`RECOVER THE AMOUNT 2 IN NUMBERS DATED` `11.02.2013 AND 30.04.2012.`
`EXHIBIT P9.`	`TRUE COPIES OF THE NOTICES DATED 26.09.2013.`
`EXHIBIT P10.`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 22.03.2013` `PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P11.`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AUDIT` `REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,` `LOCAL FUND AUDIT, ERNAKULAM UNIT BEFORE THE` `4TH RESPONDENT.`

¶56

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶57

TRUE COPY

Gopi v. the Secretary, Koovapady Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi v. the Secretary, Koovapady Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Harikumar Vs State of Kerala

Triveni Agencies Vs Assistant Commissioner

M/S. Rent Works India (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner

C.P.Venugopalan Nair Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary

Rinoj Vs the Pudukad Grama Panchayat

Ismail E.K., Vs the State of Kerala