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 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.

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) 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 se