Kerala High Court
Joy Varghese vs State Of Kerala
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur, A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAYOF MARCH 2014/6TH CHAITHRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 8936 of 2014 (S)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
1. JOY VARGHESE, AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O. VARGHESE, KUTHANAMVALLIL HOUSE, THADIYAMPADU.P.O.,
PRESIDENT, VAZHATHOPPU GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
2. ANNAMMAA BABY, AGED 55 YEARS,
W/O. BABY, PADANNAMAKKAL HOUSE, KAMAKSHI.P.O.,
PRESIDENT, KAMAKSHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
3. SOSAMMA.P.D.,AGED 60 YEARS,
D/O. DANIEL, PANAMPILLY HOUSE, ANAPPARA.P.O.,
PRESIDENT, IDUKKI-KANJIKUZHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
4. SANTHOSH THOMAS, AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O. THOMAS, CHERUKUNNEL HOUSE, MARIYAPURAM.P.O.,
PRESIDENT, MARIYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER
SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES (E) DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. REGISTRATION INSPECTOR GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
ARAKKULAM, MOOLAMATTOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
R1 TO R4 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Kss
WP(C).No. 8936 of 2014 (S)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
---------------------------------------
P1. A TRUE COY OF THE DECISION NO. VI(3) VAZHATHOPPU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
DATED 16-11-12.
P1A. A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1.
P2. A TRUE COPYA OF THE DECISION NO. 10 DATED 11-12-12.
P2A. A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2.
P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.2 DATED 21-8-2012.
P3A. A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3.
P4. A COPY OF THE NOTE MADE MENTIONED ALONG WITH THE DECISION OF
MARIYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
P4A. A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P4.
P5. A TRUE CPY OF THE GO DATED 20-1-14 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P5A. A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P 5.
P6. A COPY OF THE LOCAL BODY MAP OF THE IDUKKI BLOCK.
P7. A COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.
P7(A): A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P7.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
------------------------------------------ N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
Manjula Chellur, C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 8936 OF 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2014
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as learned Special Government Pleader representing respondent authorities.
2. Presidents of four Panchayats i.e., Vazhathoppu, Kamakshi, Idukki-Kanjikuzhi and Mariyapuram are before this Court. According to petitioners, so far as Vazhathoppu and Idukki-Kanjikuzhy Grama Panchayats, they were coming within the purview of Sub Registrar Office, Arakkulam Grama Panchayat in Idukki District. So far as Kamakshi and Mariyapuram Grama Panchayats, they were attached to Sub Registrar Office at Kattappana. By virtue of notification at Ext.P5 dated 20.01.2014, as per paragraph 3, some of the villages from these four Panchayats would be attached to new Sub Registrar Office which is coming to be established at Thoprangkudi in Vathikudi Grama Panchayat.
3. As a matter of fact, translation of Ext.P5 which is at Ext.P5(a) indicates the basis upon which such notification WP(C) No. 8936 of 2014 -:2:- came to be made. Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Ext.P5 are very relevant to understand the intention and reasoning why such notification came to be made in order to interfere or investigate, to grant the relief sought in the public interest litigation. In our view petitioner failed to prove that there exists per se arbitrary and illegal action by virtue of Ext.P5 which would affect larger interest of public within these four Panchayats.
4. Having regard to the fact that a policy decision was taken after detailed study, especially based on the report of Idukki District Registrar as well as District Collector who would be able to understand the need and necessity of people coming within these Panchayats, we are of the opinion, inconvenience or difficulty to reach a particular place expected to be experienced by residents of certain Panchayats would be there whenever such policy decision is taken, even if it is in respect of a hospital or Taluk office, Police Station or any public office. If citizens of each Panchayats were to decide the policy decision, it would be impossible for administration to run its functions. The head of district administration and the head of Registration authorities WP(C) No. 8936 of 2014 -:3:- are the best persons to speak about this. We fail to understand how political parties influence would come into play as contended by petitioners in this writ petition.
Having regard to the contents of Ext.P5 and in the light of our observations above, we are of the opinion, no good grounds are made out to take a different view in the case against a policy decision of Government. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/27/03 WP(C) No. 8936 of 2014 -:4:-