Loading...

Sachithan P.C. vs The Secretary on 26 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sachithan P.C. vs The Secretary on 26 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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

W.P.(C)No.30932/08 -2-

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

into.

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

W.P.(C)No.30932/08 -3-

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

W.P.(C)No.30932/08 -4-

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.

dsn

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information