Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 26111 OF 2022 PETITIONERS:
1 SOUMYA XAVIER AGED 36 YEARS W/O ABY MATHEW, PUNNATHANATHU HOUSE, CHAKKAMPUZHA, CHAKKAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT--686574.
2 ROBY THOMAS, AGED 34 YEARS S/O U A THOMAS, UDUPUZHAYIL HOUSE, MARANGAD, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM - 686576 BY ADVS.
V.H.JASMINE SANTHOSH MATHEW JESWIN P.VARGHESE REETHU JACOB THASNIMOL T.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT SWARAJ BHAVAN, GROUND FLOOR, NANTHANCODU, KOWDIAR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT HGRM+39Q, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, KERALA - 686002
4 THE DISTRICT PLANNING COMMITTEE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KOTTAYAM - KUMILY ROAD, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - 686002.
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - KUMILY ROAD, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - 686002.
6 PERFORMANCE AUDIT UNIT SUPERVISOR DISTRICT AUDIT OFFICE CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686001.
7 THE RAMAPURAM PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMA RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM - 686576.
8 THE PRESIDENT, GRAMA RAMAPURAM PANCHAYATH, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM - 686576.
9 MARTIN GEORGE, AGED 49 YEARS S/O VARKEY, SECRETARY OF RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM - 686576.
10 SHYNI SANTHOSH, AGED 46 YEARS W/O SANTHOSH, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, PRESIDENT, RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM - 686576.
11 JASMINE JOSEPH, AGED 33 YEARS W/O. JIJO GEORGE, VATTAKUNNEL HOUSE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO SECRETARY RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM - 686576.
BY ADVS.
GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW, SC, RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT G. SREEKUMAR (SR.)
ELIZEBATH GEORGE SUJITH MATHEW JOSE SURYA BINOY, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.26111 of 2022 `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2022
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The petitioners, who are Ward Members of Ramapuram Grama Panchayat, are aggrieved by the Resolution passed by the Panchayat Committee on 01.08.2022, which according to the petitioners, is in violation of Rules 10, 11, 26 and 28 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995.
2. The petitioners state that Ext.P2 Project Report for the year 2022-2023 was placed in an urgent meeting of the Panchayat Committee scheduled on 23.07.2022. Sixteen Members participated in the meeting. According to the petitioners, only one Member expressed his oral dissent. All others including the present Panchayat President supported the Project Report and it was decided that the Report be submitted to the 3rd respondent- Deputy Director of Panchayats on or before 03.08.2022.
3. On 27.07.2022, there was fresh election to the vacancy of Panchayat President. The existing Panchayat President voted in favour of the Opposition violating a Whip and she was again elected as Panchayat President with the support of the Opposition parties. A petition is pending before the Election Commission seeking to disqualify the Panchayat President.
4. On 30.07.2022, the newly elected Panchayat President issued Ext.P3 notice for an urgent meeting with the agenda of Annual Plan for 2022-2023. Thereupon, the petitioners verified the minutes of the meeting held on 23.07.2022 and found that the minutes of the said meeting were manipulated. The 1st petitioner was the Acting President of the meeting held on 23.07.2022. Even the signature of the 1st petitioner was forged in the minutes, allege the petitioners.
5. On 31.07.2022, the 1st petitioner received certain dissenting notes, antedated and undated, contend the petitioners. In those notes, it was stated that Ext.P2 Project Report is not implementable and hence objected to. Dissents by 10 Members (of whom one was not present in the meeting) are dissents made subsequent to the conclusion of the meeting on 23.07.2022. The petitioners have filed Exts.P7 and P8 complaints to the Panchayat as well as to its President, over the issue.
6. The petitioners state that on 01.08.2022, the Panchayat Committee meeting decided to submit a fresh Project Report Ext.P9, dropping the earlier Ext.P2 Report. By Ext.P10 Minutes, the Committee approved Ext.P9 Report. According to the petitioners, the Panchayat Committee has submitted another fresh Project Report (Ext.P13) other than Ext.P2 and P9 before the District Planning Committee on 03.08.2022, without proper studies, deliberations or discussions. The 1st petitioner has submitted Ext.P11 complaint to the 7th respondent in this regard. Objections have been sent to the District Planning Committee also. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that as per Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995, cancellation or modification of a resolution shall be passed by two-third majority of total members of the Panchayat and hence the decision taken on 01.08.2022 has no legal backing. The decision taken on 03.08.2022 by the 4th respondent is without considering the objections raised as per Ext.P16 and against the provisions of Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that as per Rule 29 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995, the Secretary shall, within ten days after the date of meeting, forward a copy of the minutes of every meeting of a Panchayat with dissenting note, if any, with the approval of the President, to the officer authorised by the Government in this behalf. Rule 29(3) stipulates that where the Secretary is of the opinion that a decision or resolution passed by the Panchayat has not been passed in accordance with law or is ultra virus the powers conferred by the Act or if implemented, it may endanger human life, health or public safety, he shall in writing
