IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 1889 of 2008(Y)
1. SMT.C.KUNJAMMA, D/O.LATE CHANDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, KONNI BLOCK PANCHAYATH,
3. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAMESH BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :16/01/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).1889/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
There is a dispute as to whether the amount
received by the petitioner, a member of the scheduled
caste, under the Indira Avaz Yojana, for construction of a
building in her own land, is a grant or a subsidy or a
loan. The averments made in the writ petition, reveal
acute penury when the petitioner is not in a position to
even complete the construction. But in the meanwhile,
steps have been taken to recover an amount of Rs.30,002/-
from the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P1 issued by the
Block Development Officer. Thereafter, it has been
followed by proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act
as evidenced by Ext.P2.
2. After having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader, I
am of the view that the petitioner’s grievance ought to be
considered by the Government in the first instance.
W.P.(C).1889/2008
2
3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the
following terms:-
4. Petitioner may prefer a detailed representation
before the first respondent within one month from today
indicating her contention as to whether the amount
disbursed to her was either a loan or a grant or a
subsidy. On receipt of such representation first
respondent shall conduct necessary enquiries and take
appropriate decision thereon within six months from the
date of receipt of representation. All further proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance till the
Government takes a decision in the manner
aforementioned. Other contentions of the petitioner are
left open.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs