IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 18824 of 2007(N)
1. MAVOOR GRMA PANCHAYATH,
... Petitioner
2. N.MANOJ KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN,
Vs
1. THE OMBUDSMAN,
... Respondent
2. K.SREENIVASAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SMT.ARLISS TRENCY ANTONY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :19/09/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 18824 OF 2007
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2007
JUDGMENT
Whether it is necessary to serve notices individually, regarding
Grama Sabha meetings convened under Section 3(3) of the Panchayat
Raj Act is the important question which arises for decision in this Writ
Petition.
2. Ext.P1 order of the Hon’ble Ombudsman for Local Self
Government Institutions under which the Ombudsman directed the
Panchayat to cancel the beneficiary list and the decisions taken in the
Grama Sabha of Ward No.15 of the petitioner-Panchayat is under
challenge in this Writ Petition initiated by the Panchayat and the
Convenor of the beneficiary committee, i.e., Convenor of the Grama
Sabha of Ward No.15. The complaint before the Ombudsman was
Ext.P2. The allegation in Ext.P2 is that the beneficiary list prepared by
the Grama Sabha in so far as it enlists a lady by name Alumkandi
Chakky who is alleged to be not eligible for the benefit under the House
Construction Scheme since her daughter Kalyani has received a total
amount of Rs.4,50,000/- by way of compensation from the Gwalior
Rayons Company, is illegal. When the complaint came up before the
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
2
Ombudsman, the Ombudsman would enquire of the complainant (the
2nd respondent herein) as to why the objection regarding Chakki was
not raised before the Grama Sabha. The 2nd respondent would answer
that he was not having any notice regarding the convening of the Grama
Sabha. On hearing the above answer, the Ombudsman would seek an
explanation from the Secretary of the Panchayat who was present and
the Secretary conceded that individual notices were not served even on
the heads of the families constituting the Grama Sabha. Observing that
it is the constitutional mandate of the Panchayat and the Convenor of
the Grama Sabha to serve individual notices to all members of the
Sabha regarding the Grama Sabha meetings and further that giving of
such individual notices is the fundamental duty as far as the Panchayat
Member is concerned, the learned Ombudsman went on to pass the
impugned order directing the Panchayat to cancel all the beneficiary lists
covered by Ext.P4 minutes in which the item pertaining to Chakki is
item No.14.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit
justifying the order of the Ombudsman. The counter affidavit even goes
beyond Ext.P2 complaint and submits that all the decisions in Ext.P4 are
vitiated since undeserving persons have been conferred with benefits.
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
3
4. Heard Mr.P.V.Kunhikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr.B.Mohanlal, counsel for the 2nd respondent.
5. My attention was drawn by Mr.Kunhikrishnan to Rule 4 of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for convening the Grama Sabha)
Rules, 1995 and also to Rule 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Manner of
publication of notification or notice ) Rules, 1996. Counsel would argue
that service of individual notices on the Grama Sabha members is not
envisaged by those Rules. Referring to Ext.P6 public notice, learned
counsel submitted that requisite notice has already been given. Counsel
also submitted that notices were affixed in public places and there was
loud speaker announcement also. Counsel also submitted that the
Convenor’s version that he tried his best to inform the members of the
Grama Sabha of the proposed meeting is not under serious challenge.
6. Mr.Mohanlal, counsel for the petitioner would draw my attention to
Kerala Panchayat Raj (Manner of Service of Notices) Rules, 1996 and
particularly to Rule 3 therein. According to him, in as much as the
Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Convening the Grama Sabha)
Rules, 1995 do not prescribe any particular mode for service of
individual notice to Grama Sabha meetings, the proper rule to be
followed is the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Manner of Service of Notices)
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
4
Rules, 1996.
7. Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj(Manner of Service of Notices)
Rules, 1996 provides as follows:
“3. Serving of notice:- (1) In case the Act or rules or bye-laws
made thereunder requires the Panchayat to serve any notice or
document to a person, such service or sending shall, unless
otherwise provided in the Act or rules or bye-laws made
thereunder, be done,-
(a) by service or sending of notice or document to such
person; or”
(rest being irrelevant is omitted.)
It is true that as per Rule 3(a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
(Manner of Service of Notices) Rules, 1996, service of individual notice
to the person who is intended to be served with notice has been
contemplated. But Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Manner of
Service of Notices) Rules, 1996 applies only in cases where the
Panchayat Raj Act or Rules or Bye-laws made thereunder requires the
Panchayat to serve notices to a person. The Panchayat Raj Act does
not insist on service of notice of Grama Sabha meetings to the persons
who constitute the Grama Sabha as per Section 3(2) or to the head of
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
5
the families within the area of the Grama Sabha. The relevant Rule in
my opinion is Rule 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for
convening the Grama Sabha) Rules, 1995 which is quoted hereunder:
“4. Date and Time for the meeting of the Grama Sabha:-
The President of the Village Panchayat shall, in consultation with
the Convenor of the Grama Sabha concerned, fix the date and
time between 8 am and 6 pm. And the Secretary of the Village
Panchayat concerned shall publish the place date and time of the
meeting, so fixed, by affixing notice in appropriate public places,
Government Offices, schools in the area of the Grama Sabha and
in the office of the Village Panchayat. The Convenor concerned
shall try to inform the members of the Grama Sabha the place,
date and time of the meeting and cause them to attend the
meeting (underlining supplied).”
Thus under the Rule what is required is only that there shall be
publicity regarding the proposed meeting of the Grama Sabha and that
the Convenor concerned shall try to inform the members of the Grama
Sabha, the place, date and time of the meeting and cause them to
attend the meeting. What is contemplated is publication of the date,
place and time, by affixing notice in public places, Government Offices,
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
6
Schools in the area of the Grama Sabha and in the office of the
Panchayat. The mandate to the Convenor is only that he shall try to
inform the members of the venue and time of the meeting and also
cause them to attend the meeting. Rule 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
(Procedure for convening the Grama Sabha) Rules, 1995 being the
apposite Rule, the question to be considered is whether that Rule has
been complied with in the instant case. The materials available and
placed on record by the petitioners will show that there has been
adequate compliance with that rule. Ext.P6 is copy of the notice issued
by the Convenor of the Grama Sabha regarding the Grama Sabha
meetings which is proposed to be held on 2.9.06 at 3 PM in a local
school. The agenda of the meeting is clearly shown in Ext.P6. The
claim that the notices were affixed in important places within the area of
the Grama Sabha and propagated through loud speaker is not
challenged. Considering the Pragmatic difficulties in serving individual
notices on all the members of the Grama Sabha which may consists of
thousands of people the learned Ombudsman is not justified in insisting
on service of individual notices on all the members when neither the
statute nor the relevant rule requires such service. The meeting in
question, in my opinion was convened with due notice to the Grama
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
7
Sabha members and the learned Ombudsman was not justified in
cancelling the beneficiary lists and all the decisions taken in the meeting
and directing the consideration of the beneficiary lists in the next Grama
Sabha. It is also to be noticed in this context that the statutory quorum
for Grama Sabha meeting is only 10% of the total number of voters and
obviously quorum has been fixed so taking into account the pragmatic
difficulties which will arise if a higher quorum is insisted upon.
8. There is another reason why I am unable to sustain Ext.P1
order. Ext.P2 complaint was specifically directed against the decision
which is mentioned as item No.14 in Ext.P14 minutes, i.e., the decision
to give the benefit to Smt.Chakki. It was not proper to set aside all the
decisions as per Ext.P4 on the basis of Ext.P2 complaint. Of course, in
his verbal submissions before the Ombudsman and through the counter
affidavit filed by him before this court, the 4th respondent has attempted
to say that all the decisions in Ext.P4 are vitiated. But in my opinion the
2nd respondent having confined his complaint against Smt.Chakki alone
in Ext.P2, is not entitled to challenge the other decisions in Ext.P4.
9. I set aside Ext.P1 to the extent it pertains to the decisions other
than item No.14 in Ext.P4 minutes. There will be a direction to the
Ombudsman to take fresh decision on Ext.P2 complaint confining the
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
8
enquiry into the question whether there is any infirmity about the
decision which is mentioned as item No.14 in Ext.P4 with notice to the
parties. The Ombudsman will ensure that notice is also issued to
Smt.Chakki and the 2nd respondent herein before fresh orders are
passed.
The Writ Petition is allowed of as above. No costs.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
srd/btt
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
9
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
10