Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Vanaraj Aged 52 Years vs The Santhanpara Grama Panchayath on 21 May, 2013

Paurasamithi Vadayampady vs State Of Kerala on 18 December, 2019

5. Though the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on judgment in Vanaraj v. Santhanpara Grama Panchayat (2014 (2) KHC 674), to emphasise that a member of the Panchayat can approach the Government as provided u/s Section191(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and there was no opportunity for the 2 nd petitioner/appellant to approach the Government, since the District Collector had rejected the application for setting up of the crematorium, it is not the decision of the District collector that matters. The Panchayat had already passed a resolution. If the 2 nd appellant was aggrieved by the said decision, it was open for him to challenge the said WA No.980/2019 -:7:- decision of the Panchayat by approaching the Government invoking Section 191(1). Having not done so, he cannot approach any Court challenging the decision of the Panchayat. The genesis of the order passed by the District Collector or the Government is the decision of the Panchayat. The 2nd petitioner's attempt is to overcome the decision of the Panchayat by challenging the decision of the Government, which is not permissible.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Siju Mani vs The Ettumanoor Grama Panchayath on 2 August, 2014

The petitioners claims to be the residents of Ettumanoor village and they intend to indulge in fish vending business in Ettumanoor market. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of Ext.P7 and issuance of writ declaring that in view of Rule 11 of Panchayat Raj (Acquisition and Disposal of Property) Rules 2005 as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court in Vanaraj v. Santhanpara Grama Panchayat [2014 (2) KLT 958], the stalls intended to be allotted for trading of fish constructed in Ettumanoor Grama Panchayat, using government fund could be disposed of only in public auction except in the case of allotment of the stalls in the names of the previous licensees under the panchayat. The further prayer is for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 not to W.P.(C).19302/14 2 allot stalls in the hygienic panchayat market in Ettumanoor in the names of or in favour of respondents 4 to 14 without public auction in the absence of their identification as the previous licensees under the panchayat doing business in the market building demolished for construction of the new buildings. Ext.P7 dated 9.7.2014 is the order issued by the Government granting instalment facilities to those persons who are identified as persons eligible for getting allotted the 12 shop rooms reserved under clause 20 of Ext.P4. As per Ext.P7, such instalment facilities were given to them in the manner set out in Ext.P7. Ascanning of the pleadings would reveal that essentially the grievance of the petitioners is against the identification of respondents 4 to 14 as the persons eligible to get allotted the shop rooms reserved under clause 20 of Ext.P4. In that context, it is to be noted that those persons were actually identified as the eligible persons under Ext.P3 dated 1.10.2013. I may hasten to add that despite the production of the said order, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge Ext.P3 whereby respondents 4 to 14 have been identified as the persons W.P.(C).19302/14 3 eligible to get the rooms reserved for allotment under clause 20 of Ext.P4. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that without a challenge against the basic order there can be no successful challenge against the consequential order. The learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to explain the situation. It is contended that Ext.P3 got merged with Ext.P7 and therefore, there is absolutely no necessity to mount any challenge against Ext.P3 separately. To ascertain the tenability of the said contention, a conjoint reading of Exts.P3 and P7 has to be made. A perusal of Ext.P3 would reveal that in the meeting held on 1.10.2013 of the council of the first respondent panchayat a resolution was passed. 12 person including respondents 4 to 14 were identified as persons eligible to be allotted with the rooms set apart under clause 20 of Ext.P4. Ext.P7 is only an order whereby the persons thus identified under Ext.P3 were given instalment facilities for effecting payment towards the security amount to be paid by them. In such circumstances, I cannot uphold the contention of the petitioners that Ext.P3 got merged with Ext.P7 and therefore, without W.P.(C).19302/14 4 mounting a separate challenge against Ext.P3 whereby respondents 4 to 14 were identified as the eligible persons the petitioners could not successfully challenge Ext.P7 as it is only a concession granted in favour of such eligible persons. In this case, one another aspect also assumes relevance. Admittedly, Ext.P1 notification was published for auctioning the stalls in the aforesaid fish market. There is no case for the petitioners that pursuant to the notification issued regarding the auction of the stalls, they responded to the same. The only contention of the petitioners is that they are intending to indulge in fish vending in Ettumanoor market. Whatever that be, the indisputable position obtained is that they did not respond to Ext.P1 notification issued by the first respondent in regard to the auction of the shop rooms in the hygienic market. In that context it is also to be noted that certain persons who unsuccessfully participated in the auction had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.9048 of 2014. The said writ petition was filed mainly with the following prayers:-
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - C T Ravikumar - Full Document
1