IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 30932 of 2008(G) 1. SACHITHAN P.C., PULICHUDALAYIL HOUSE, ... Petitioner Vs 1. THE SECRETARY, KARASSERY GRAMA ... Respondent 2. VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER 3. V.K.VINOD, PRESIDENT, KARASSERY 4. MANI DEVARAJ, PANCHAYATH MEMBER, 5. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF For Petitioner :SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Dated :26/10/2010 O R D E R T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 30932 Of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010 J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibits P4 and P5 orders
passed by the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government
Institutions, wherein his complaint has been closed, according to
the petitioner, without conducting a detailed enquiry.
2. The complaint filed by the petitioner relates to the
granting of financial assistance for house construction under the
Peoples’ Plan Programme among the applicants for the year
2007-08. Initially, the Grama Sabha was convened on
29.11.2007, wherein a decision was taken to constitute a
Committee for enquiring into the allegations in preparing the list
of beneficiaries. Again another meeting of the Grama Sabha was
convened on 21.1.2008. According to the petitioner no
discussion on the point was allowed in the meeting and the list
was passed abruptly. This was objected to by the petitioner and
several other persons. Alleging various irregularities, the
petitioner filed a complaint as per Exhibit P3.
3. By Exhibit P4, the learned Ombudsman directed the
petitioner to produce details of applicants, etc. By Exhibit P5, an
order was passed after hearing both sides. The petitioner had
pointed out two names, namely, Smt.Subna Ali and Khadeeja,
whose names have been wrongly left out. With regard to
Khadeeja, it was pointed out by the Secretary that she has been
granted the benefit under the Indira Avas Yojana. A direction was
issued to the Secretary to include the name of Subna Ali after
assessing her marks as 53.
4. Mainly it is pointed out that the learned Ombudsman
refused to investigate the complaint in detail and the allegations
of corruption and maladministration ought to have been enquired
5. The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit. It is
pointed out that the petitioner has no locus standi as he was
neither an applicant nor a beneficiary under the Scheme. It is
explained that the beneficiaries were selected through a three
stage process. Firstly, through the conventional mechanism of
calling for the applications and assigning marks in accordance
with the answers given in the application form. Secondly, by re-
verification of the application and marks awarded through the
NHG net work under the Community Development Scheme of
Kudumbrasree and finally through the discussion and approval of
the list of beneficiaries in the Grama Sabha and Ward Sabha.
Accordingly, applications were called for by the Panchayat. After
completion of the first two stages, the list was placed before the
Grama Sabha. There were certain allegations with respect to
Ward No.8 regarding the inclusion of certain ineligible persons.
Even though a suggestion came to enquire into the matter
through the Samithi, since that is not the procedure prescribed,
again another Grama Sabha was convened. The matter was put
for discussion and after almost for more than an hour of
discussion, the issue was put for voting and on the basis of the
majority decision, the list was approved. It is pointed out that
the allegations raised by the petitioner are not correct.
6. Evidently, the scheme was for the year 2007-08 and
as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-
Panchayat, the Scheme is not operative thereafter. Therefore,
any addition to the list cannot be thought of at this distance of
time. That is the reason why the learned Ombudsman was of the
view that from among the two persons whose names are given in
Exhibit P5 one of them was granted benefit under the Indira Avas
Yojana and the remaining person could be granted the benefit.
Even though it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that detailed enquiry should have been conducted, the
limited question is whether the proceedings issued as per Exhibit
P5 can be faulted. In Exhibit P4, the learned Ombudsman was of
the view that at that point of time the only question was whether
any eligible applicant has been left out. The said order is dated
19.5.2008. It is evident that the Scheme did not continue
thereafter, namely, during the succeeding financial years. The
term of the Committee is over already. In that view of the
matter also, no beneficiaries can be added to the list or be given
any benefit at this distance of time. Therefore, I find nothing
wrong with the orders passed by the learned Ombudsman and
the Writ Petition is dismissed.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.