IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31267 of 2009(S)
1. N.S.VARGHESE, S/O.SCARIA, AGED 60 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MULLORKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :17/12/2009
O R D E R
S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.31267 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of December 2009
JUDGMENT
A.K.BASHEER, J.
Petitioner, who claims to be a social worker and public spirited
person, has filed this writ petition professedly in public interest praying for
issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or
direction to the respondent/Panchayat not to cut and remove any trees
standing in its office premises or in the premises of other buildings under
its control without any “valid reason and permission” from the competent
authorities. Petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2
auction notice published by the Panchayat proposing to cut and remove 14
trees indicated therein.
2. The grievance of the petitioner, who is a former President of the
very same Grama Panchayat, is that the proposal to cut and remove these
14 valuable trees is totally unwarranted. He alleges that the said attempt
is without any authority or sanction of law. He further contends that there
is absolutely no chance for any danger to the life or property of the public
necessitating such an unwarranted action.
3. When this writ petition came up for admission on November 5,
2009 we ordered notice to the respondents and directed that all further
steps pursuant to Ext.P2 auction notice be kept in abeyance.
W.P.(C)No.31267 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though auction
was held pursuant to Ext.P2 notice, the trees have not been allowed to be
cut by the auction purchaser. In fact only 6 out of the 14 trees mentioned
in Ext.P2 notification were sold in the public auction. Other trees were not
sold, since the money offered was not adequate.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is asserted that
the decision to cut and remove these 14 trees was taken by the Panchayat
way back in the year 2007 itself after considering the request received
from various quarters like Head Mistress of the nearby school, Village
Officer, District Medical Officer of Ayurveda Hospital etc. Learned counsel
has also made available the relevant file containing the various resolutions
passed by the Panchayat from time to time regarding this issue. The
communications/permission received from the Assistant Conservator of
Forest allowing the Panchayat to cut and remove the trees in question are
also available in the file.
6. However, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the entire action smacks of malafides. He contends that even assuming
such requests were received from various persons/authorities, the
panchayat is not justified in proceeding to cut and remove those trees.
7. We are unable to understand the rationale behind the above
contention. It has to be remembered that the decision to cut and remove
these trees, which according to the Panchayat are in a dangerous
W.P.(C)No.31267 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
condition, has been taken by the body comprising of elected
representatives. It is a Local Self Government institution. The decisions
taken by such bodies are covered by statutes. Such institutions work
within the four corners of the relevant statute as envisaged under the
Constitution itself. In that view of the matter, we are not in a position to
accept the contention raised by the petitioner that the action of the
Panchayat smacks of malafides or irrationality. The Panchayat, in our
view, is well within its powers to take a decision in such matters. Even
otherwise, on the face of the materials available on record, we are totally
satisfied that the decision of the Panchayat is valid. Moreover, as
mentioned earlier, the Assistant Conservator of Forest has already given
permission to cut and remove the enumerated trees. In that view of the
matter, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the
petitioner.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with cost which is quantified
at Rs.10,000/-. This shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondents
within four weeks from today.
(S.R.BANNURMATH)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
jes