IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25213 of 2010(S)
1. K.SAINUDHEEN, MEMBER WARD NO.1.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, RPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION,
3. THE COMMISSIONR, KERALA STATE CIVIL
4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE
5. THE ASST.MANAGER, SUPPLYCO DEPOT, TIRUR,
6. VETTOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH POST VETTOM,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For Respondent :SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :11/08/2010
O R D E R
J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.25213 of 2010
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ravindran,J.
The petitioner, who is a member of Ward No.1 of Vettom Grama
Panchayat, has filed this writ petition challenging the decision taken
by the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation to open a Maveli Store
at Alissery within the local limits of the said Panchayat.
2. The main contention raised in the writ petition is that the
members of the Grama Panchayat that met on 29-1-2010 have by a
majority of 12 votes against 7 decided to have the Maveli Store
established at Paravanna and that in view of the said decision the
Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation is bound to establish the Maveli
Store in that place. It is on this ground that the petitioner, a Ward
Member of the Panchayat, seeks the intervention of this Court to
ensure that the Maveli Store is established in Paravanna.
3. The Apex Court has in J.R.Raghupathy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1681, while dealing with the jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to sit in
appeal over the decision of the State Government to locate the Mandal
Headquarters at a particular place held as follows:-
W.P(C).No.25213 of 2010
-:2:-
“9. It will serve no useful purpose to
delineate the facts in all the cases which follow
more or less on the same lines. We are of the
opinion that the High Court had no jurisdiction
to sit in appeal over the decision of the State
Government to locate the Mandal Headquarters
at a particular place. The decision to locate such
Headquarters at a particular village is dependent
upon various factors. The High Court obviously
could not evaluate for itself the comparative
merits of a particular place as against the other
for location of the Mandal Headquarters. In
some of the cases the High Court declined to
interfere saying that the Government was the
best judge of the situation in the matter of
location of Mandal Headquarters.”
It was held that the High Court could not evaluate for itself the
comparative merits of a particular place as against the other, for
location of the Mandal Headquarters. In the instant case the Kerala
State Civil Supplies Corporation has taken steps to establish a Maveli
Store at Alissery taking note of the request made by the Member of
the Legislative Assembly representing Tirur Assembly Constituency
within which Constituency the Vettom Grama Panchayat is situated.
The majority of the members of the Panchayat want the Maveli Store
to be established at a different locality. It was after taking into
W.P(C).No.25213 of 2010
-:3:-
account the views of the Member of the Legislative Assembly
representing Tirur Assembly Constituency that the Kerala State Civil
Supplies Corporation took the decision to establish a Maveli Store at
Alissery. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to substitute its
decision in the place of the decision of the Kerala State Civil Supplies
Corporation and to direct that the Maveli Store be established at the
place suggested by the Panchayat. The petitioner has not pointed
out any right in him to have the Maveli Store established at the place
of his choice. The locality where the Maveli Store is to be established
is a matter for the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation to decide.
In such circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the
petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The writ petition
fails and is accordingly dismissed.
J.CHELAMESWAR,
Chief Justice
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.
ahg.
J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. &
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
—————————
W.P(C).No.25213 of 2010
—————————-
JUDGMENT
11th August, 2010