Kerala High Court
Rajim vs District Development Authority on 31 January, 2014
Author: C.T.Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2014/11TH CHAITHRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 5458 of 2014 (F)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------
RAJIM
S/O.ALI, CHERUTHODI HOUSE, AMBALAKKADU
VAVULLIAPURAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------
1. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN-678 001.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (LSGD)
ALATHUR BLOCK PANCHAYAT, ALATHUR
PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN-678 541.
3. THARUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
THARUR, ALATHUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
PIN-698 547.
R3 BY ADVS. SRI.G.D.PANICKER
SMT.JEENA JOSEPH
R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SOJAN JAMES
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 5458 of 2014 (F)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------------
P1- TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL MADE BY SMT.LATHA, PROJECT OFFICER,
IPPS, THADIPADAM COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, PAZHAMPARACODE.
P2- TRUE COPYOF THE REQUEST DATED 31.01.2014 MADE BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE SECRETARY.
P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
THARUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P2.
P4- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.2.2014 SENT BY THE
SECRETARY OF THARUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT ALONGWITH THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE PWD WORKING GROUP OF THAUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT HELD
ON 01.02.2014.
P5- TRUE COPY OF THE BUDGET PROVISION FOR THE YEAR 2014-2015 OF TARUR
GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R3(1) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MASS PETITION.
EXT.R3(2) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.4 DATED 14.2.2014 OF
THE PANCHYATH.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
dlk
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 5458 of 2014
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a member of the Tarur Grama Panchayat. This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider and take decision on the request made by the Tarur Grama Panchayat detailed in Ext.P5 with relation to decision No.1/14 of various development works to be carried out in Tarur Grama Panchayat including the tarring of Komathiparambu-Poolakkal Parambu road. Evidently, as per Ext.P5 priority was given to certain development works in accordance with the procedures and according to the petitioner the said priority given by the committee of the Panchayat is not correct and instead it should have been in tune with prayer No.
(i). Thus, it is obvious that the petitioner is virtually challenging the resolution passed by the council of the Panchayat in which he is also a member. Any resolution passed by a Panchayat can be called in question, in accordance with law with the provisions W.P.(C) No. 5458 of 2014 2 under section 191 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. As per the resolution in question the priority was decided in the manner and the petitioner is virtually dissatisfied with the order of priority and according to the petitioner priority should have been given to development works to be carried out as detailed in Ext.P5 as relates decision No.1/14 in the resolution. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that being a member of the Panchayat the petitioner cannot challenge the collective wisdom of the Panchayat. In the contextual situation the decision in Vanaraj V. Santhanpara Grama Panchayat reported in 2014 (1) KLT 1065 assumes relevance. In the said decision it is held that the legislature has provided a remedy to a member of the Panchayat committee to maintain a challenge against any resolution passed by the Panchayat and that lies under section 191 of the Panchayat Raj Act. It is also held that even if, some members of the Panchayat committee expressed dessent over a decision carried out by the majority the principle of collective responsibility would make such a decision a collective decision of the Panchayat and in such circumstances they can be called in W.P.(C) No. 5458 of 2014 3 question only in the manner provided under section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Thus, in the light of the said decision in Vanaraj's case (supra) even in case the petitioner is having any grievance relating any resolution or any collective decision taken by the Panchayat the petitioner has to work out his remedy in tune with the provision under section 191 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. In the said circumstances without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail the said remedy in accordance with law, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.
dlk