The court ruled that the Secretary of a Panchayat acted within his authority under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, and the Human Rights Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing penalties.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22^nd day of August, 2024

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

Petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P14 Order dated 22.03.2022 issued by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) which inter alia directed initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him over an Order issued by him to cut and remove two trees in the property of the 8th respondent which were complained by the 7^th respondent as causing danger and threat to her life and property. Petitioner also seeks to quash Ext.P15 consequential order dated 17.06.2022 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

Facts in brief :

2. While petitioner was working as the Secretary of the 6th respondent Panchayat, Ext.P1 representation was preferred before him by the 7^th respondent pointing out that two trees precariously positioned close to her dwelling house within her neighbour’s (8^th respondent’s) compound are posing danger and imminent threat to her life and property. It was stated in Ext.P1 that the said trees could at any time fall onto the residential house of the 7^th respondent wherein she is staying with her differently-abled son, as her husband was away in connection with his avocation. Upon receipt of Ext.P1, petitioner, inspected the property and after confirming the genuinity of the facts averred in the complaint, issued Ext.P2 notice to the 8^th respondent’s husband who owned the property calling upon him to take steps to alleviate the threat emanating from said trees either by cutting and removing the same or by cropping the branches that pose danger to the neighbours. Neither the 8^th respondent nor her husband complied with the said direction. The 7^th respondent again approached the petitioner with the same grievance and the petitioner issued a further notice (Ext.P3) to the 8^th respondent’s husband calling upon him to cut and remove the dangerous trees. The said notice too was not complied with. The 7^th respondent in the meanwhile, moved the 5^th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate (RDO) with the very same complaint (Ext.P4) and the 5^th respondent duly forwarded the same to the petitioner directing him to report compliance. Petitioner in furtherance thereof, issued yet another notice to the 8^th respondent reiterating the direction to cut and remove the dangerously positioned trees within her property. The said third notice was also not complied with. In the meanwhile, the 6^th respondent Panchayat deliberated on the issue of trees situated in dangerous conditions and causing imminent threat to life and property within the Panchayat limits. It was resolved by the Panchayat committee vide Ext.P6 resolution to exercise the power vested in Section 238 (1)(a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 and to cut and remove trees dangerously situated with respect to which complaints had been received. While so, the 7^th respondent preferred a complaint before the 4^th respondent Deputy Director of Panchayat (DDP) stating that notwithstanding notices from the Panchayat and the RDO, no steps have been taken to cut and remove the trees causing danger and threat to her life. The 4^th respondent hence issued a letter (Ext.P7) to the petitioner directing to cut and remove the trees causing threat and danger to the 7^th respondent standing in the land owned by the husband of the 8^th respondent, if there are no interdicting stay orders from courts. The petitioner was also directed to report compliance after carrying out the said direction. Petitioner thereafter issued Ext.P8 Order dated 19