IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15633 of 2009(Y)
1. K.A.JOSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :08/06/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 15633 of 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 8th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a ‘hexagenerian’, elected as the convener and
nominee to implement the work in deepening and widening of a ‘thodu’
in the 5th respondent Grama Panchayath. It is stated that in the course
of operations pursued, the petitioner was given various amounts in
connection with the work. However, observing that the petitioner has
not actually performed the requisite extent of work, recovery
proceedings at the instance of the 5th respondent have been initiated,
which in turn was sought to be intercepted by filing W.P.(C) No. 2572
of 2008, leading to Ext.P12 judgment.
2. As per Ext.P12 verdict, the petitioner was permitted to pursue
his remedy, either by filing a representation before the Government
under Section 191 of the Panchayath Raj Act or to prefer an appeal
before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, if such
course was permissible in law. It is the case of the petitioner that he
has already approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P13 petition
under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, as directed by this
Court in Ext.P12 verdict. The petitioner’s grievance is that, despite
filing the representation along with petition for stay, the same has not
been considered at all and notwithstanding the pendency of the
WP (C) No. 15633 of 2009
: 2 :
proceedings as above, the 4th respondent is hastly proceeding with the
Revenue Recovery steps as evident from Ext.P4, which hence is
sought to be interfered by this Court.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances and the directions
proposed to be given, this Court does not find it necessary to issue
notice to the 5th respondent, for the time being. After hearing the
learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to
4, the matter is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider
Ext.P13 representation along with petition for stay and appropriate
orders shall be passed thereon in accordance with law, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if not already disposed of, as
expeditiously and possible, at any rate, within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear
that, till such appropriate orders are passed on Ext.P13, all further
coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd