IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33067 of 2007(J)
1. GEORGE JOSEPH NARIMATTATHIL HOUSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT PLANNING COMMITTEE
3. THE KOZHUVANAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC, SC.KOZHUVANAL G.PANCH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :16/11/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 33067 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 16thday of November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of
respondents 1 and 2. In the nature of the orders, which are being passed
hereunder, it is not necessary to issue notice to the 3rd respondent-
Panchayat.
2. Petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 1st
respondent seeking immediate interference on the functioning of the 3rd
respondent and not to approve the plan submitted by the Panchayat for the
year 2007-08, if it is found that the same is in violation of the guidelines
issued in that context by the Government. Ext.P5 representation has been
submitted by the petitioner before the District Collector, who is the
Chairman of the District Planning Committee, requesting specifically that
the approval may not be given to the plan submitted by the 3rd respondent
for the year 2007-08. As far as the allegation that the plan has been
submitted in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government, I do not
propose to go into the merits of the matter. Since Exts. P4 ad P5 have
been submitted and are apparently pending before the respondents, it is
only appropriate that respondents 1 and 2 takes appropriate decision on
those two representations, before approval is granted to the plan submitted
WPC NO 33067/07 Page numbers
by the 3rd respondent-Panchayat for the year 2007-08.
Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition issuing the following
directions.
(i) The 2nd respondent is directed to place Ext.P5 in the very next
meeting of the DPC and take a correct decision in the light of the various
grounds in this writ petition and the various documents produced along with
the same.
(ii) Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment
together with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent, as soon
as he obtains the same, so as to enable the 2nd respondent to comply with
the above direction.
(iii) As regards Ext.P4 order, 1st respondent is directed to take a
decision on Ext.P4 in accordance with law and in the light of the grounds
raised in the writ petition within one month of receiving a copy of this
judgment and a copy of this writ petition. It is needless to mention that both
respondents 1 and 2 will comply with the directions given as above, only
after obtaining the remarks of the 3rd respondent and if necessary, after
hearing the 3rd respondent and the petitioner.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
vps
WPC NO 33067/07 Page numbers