Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE29H DAY OF JANUARY20149TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 2841 of 2014 (E) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------- JOSEMON MUNDAKKAL, AGED48YEARS KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PANCHAYATH MEMBER, S/O.AUGUSTHY MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, KEZHVANGULAM, KOTTAYAM PIN-686631. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION T HIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICE, COLLECTORATE KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY PIN:686631.
3. THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICE, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM PIN-686631. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ROSER MICHAEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2901-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2841 of 2014 (E) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------- EXT.P1 THE ORIGINAL OF THE NOTICE WITH ITS SEALED COVER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT OFFICE KOTTAYAM EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA OF THE MEETING OF THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH KOTTAYAM DATED91/2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. dlk C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2841 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2014 JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a member of Kottayam District Panchayat from its Ward No.21. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of Ext.P2 and all the decisions pursuant to Ext.P2 and also for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to call for proper District Panchayat committee meeting in accordance with law for reconsidering all the decisions taken on 9.1.2014. It is also prayed for a direction to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the said respondents to issue proper notice as per the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Procedure For Panchayath Meeting) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules') in all future meetings. The grievance of the petitioner is that the meeting of the Kottayam District Panchayat was conducted on 09.01.2014 without proper notice in tune with Rule 4 of the Rules. According to him, he received Ext.P1 notice only on 10.1.2014. In short, the grievance of the petitioner is that on account of the failure on the part of the Secretary of the W.P.(C) No.2841 of 2014 2 Panchayat to strictly adhere to the provisions under the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act ( for short 'the Act') and the Rules the petitioner could not present in the meeting and present the genuine grievances relating his Ward No.21 of Kottayam District Panchayat and also to partake in the deliberations on the subjects by making his views on such subjects. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner filed this captioned writ petition with the aforementioned prayers.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, relying on the provisions under Section 161 of the Act and Rule 4 of the Rules, that the decisions taken on the various subjects mentioned in the agenda of the meeting held on 9.1.2014 violate the provisions under the Acts and Rules and therefore they are liable to be cancelled. In the context of the said contentions it is relevant to refer to Rule 11. It reads thus:- "11.Cancellation or modification of resolutions:- No resolution of a Panchayat shall be modified or cancelled except through a resolution passed in a meeting specially convened for the purpose within three months of passing W.P.(C) No.2841 of 2014 3 such resolution, by a two third majority of the total number of members of the Panchayat. (provided that where the Panchayat is satisfied that a decision or resolution passed by the Panchayat has not been passed in accordance with law or it has been passed in violation of any of the powers conferred on the Panchayat by the Act or abuse thereof or that, if implemented, it may endanger human life, health or public safety, the Panchayat may, at any time with the approval of more than one-half of the total number of members of the Panchayat, amend or repeal such decision or resolution." It is thus obvious that if a decision or any resolution was passed by the Panchayat not in accordance with law or it was passed in violation of any of the powers conferred by the Panchayat under the Act the petitioner can move a petition before the Panchayat for cancellation or modification of the resolution provided the decisions so taken were in respect of any of the subjects mentioned under Rule 11. That apart, the petitioner is also having a remedy under Rule 191 of the Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') to redress such grievances. Thus it is evident that the petitioner is having alternative, efficacious remedies either under Rule 11 of the Rules or under Section 191 of the Act. In the said circumstances I am of the view that the petitioner has W.P.(C) No.2841 of 2014 4 to resort to any of the remedies which is available under the Act or the Rules and he may resort to any such remedy if he so advised. In the circumstances, this writ petition is not to be entertained at this stage. Subject to the above observations this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE. dlk