IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 12508 of 2006(L)
1. O.BABU, RESIDING AT OTTAKKAL VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. M.K.CHENTHAMARAKSHAN, KALATHIL VEEDU,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
4. THE SECRETARY,
5. THE SECRETARY, KALKULAM GIRIJAN
6. OMBUDSMAN REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
For Respondent :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :18/09/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
..........................................................
W.P.(C)No.12508 OF 2006
...........................................................
DATED THIS THE 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner who was the convener of a beneficiary committee
which undertook the work of constructing a public road from Chokkad
Girijan Colony to L.P.School ground is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of the
Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions wherein the
Panchayat Secretary has been directed to recover 200 quintals of rice
which had been entrusted with the petitioner as part of the
remuneration for the road construction work, on the reason that the
work has been completed only in part.
2. Heard Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri.N.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the 4th respondent
and Sri.Shyson P.Manguzha, learned Government Pleader. I have gone
through the pleadings raised by the parties.
3. It is stated by the Panchayat in paragraph 2 of its counter
affidavit as follows:-
“In regard to the contention in para.2, page 3, it
is humbly submitted that the land belonging to
Dakshayani, Shobana Periyangad, Kovala Makkan and
Mathikaruvankund had been given to them by Kalkulam
Girijan Society. District Collector is the Chairman of
WP(C)N0.12508/06
-2-the Society. Panchayat had addressed letter to the
District Collector for assigning this land for constructing
public road. But no fruitful result was materalised.”
It is thus clear that there is some merit in the case of the petitioner
that it was on account of occupancy of portions of road area by these
four persons that he was unable to complete execution of the work.
The petitioner alone cannot be blamed at any rate for the delay which
has been caused in executing the work.
4. The 3rd respondent is the District Collector who is also the
Chairman of the 5th respondent-Society. It is discernible from the
pleadings and the various materials placed on record that the four
persons mentioned in para.2 of the counter affidavit of the Panchayat
are presently in occupation of a portion of the land coming within the
alignment of the proposed road. It is submitted that these four
persons will have to surrender only portions of the land presently
under their occupation which is on the basis of the allotment by the
Collector under a certain welfare scheme. It is for respondents 4 and
5 to prevail upon these four persons and facilitate surrender of the
required portions by them so as to pave way for completing execution
of the work by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent-District Collector
WP(C)N0.12508/06
-3-
himself is the Chairman of the 5th respondent-Society which was
constituted with the objective of monitoring works like the present
one. The 3rd respondent will also do everything that is possible at his
end to ensure that the four persons also co-operate in the completion
of the work by the petitioner. Needful will be done in the matter by
respondents 3, 4 and 5 within four months of the petitioner placing
before them a copy of this judgment. Considering the above
directions, there will be a further direction that Exts.P2 and P4 will be
kept in abeyance for a period of six months. In the meanwhile, if so
advised, the petitioner can challenge Exts.P2 and P4 in accordance
with law.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
tgl
WP(C)N0.12508/06
-4-
WP(C)N0.12508/06
-5-