Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21409
N. NAGARESH, J
K.S.SHIJU – Appellant
Versus
CHENKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 19973 OF 2020|WP(C) NO. 13949 OF 2021|WP(C) NO. 14390 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.S.SWATHI KUMAR, ANITHA RAVINDRAN, HARISANKAR N UNNI, SARANGADHARAN P
For the Respondents: R.T.PRADEEP, S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI, M.BINDUDAS, K.C.HARISH, GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. MANU RAJ
The Grama Panchayat's authority under the MGNREG Act 2005 is paramount in project decisions, focusing on public benefit over individual interests.
Headnote:The petitioners' grievances regarding the construction of a bridge under the MGNREGS, claimed to benefit only one individual while illegally encroaching upon public resources, were examined. The Court noted that the Grama Panchayat's decisions hold primary authority under the MGNREG Act. The main issues revolved around public benefit versus personal gain and the legality surrounding the project's execution. Ultimately, the District Collector was directed to decide on the project's continuation in light of public interest, maintaining the interim halt on work until that decision is reached.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of project relevance and petitioner grievances. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. discussion on authority and project execution under mgnregs. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 19) |
| 3. highlighting the conflict of interests and public benefit. (Para 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's directive for the district collector's intervention. (Para 20) |
| 5. final order and continuation of past interim measures. (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2021
[W.P.(C) Nos.19973/2020, 13949/2021 & 14390/2021]
All the three writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner, related to same set of facts and cause of action and hence are heard together and being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The petitioner is a resident of Chenkal Grama Panchayat in Thiruvananthapuram District. The petitioner is aggrieved by the construction of a new bridge and approach road under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), which construction, according to the petitioner, is beneficial only to one influential individual and is being carried out reducing the width of an existing public canal.
3. In W.P.(C) No.19973/2020, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondents to comply with Ext.P7 communication of the Block Programme Officer directing the Panchayat to stop the work. In W.P.(C) No.13949/2021, the petitioner seeks to declare that Ext.P9 communication of the Joint Programme Co-ordinator directing to resume the said work, as illegal. In W.P.(C) No.14390/2021, the petitioner prays for a declaration that respondents 2 to 7 are legally bound to implement Ext.P11 decision of the 1st respondent–Grama Panchayat and stop the work forthwith.
4. The respondents and exhibits marked in these writ petitions are referred to as they are arrayed/marked in W.P. (C) No.14390/2021.
5. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of 1st respondent–Chenkal Grama Panchayat and that the 5th respondent, who is a Panchayat Contractor, has property near the petitioner’s house. Their properties are near Vandichira Canal. A bund of the said Vandichira Canal has now developed as a pathway. The Canal originally had a width of 18 metres and due to encroachments from time to time, the width available now is hardly 7 metres. There is a concrete bridge across the Canal through which two-wheelers and three-wheelers ply. The canal is the source of irrigation water.
6. In the year 2016, the 5th respondent started to encroach upon the Canal making constructions by filling up the sides of the Canal. The petitioner filed O.S. No.730/2019 and the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara passed Ext.P2 injunction order restraining the 5th respondent from trespassing into Plaint A Schedule property. Later, the 5th respondent prevailed upon the 1st respondent and managed to get the work of construction of retaining walls on the side of the Canal and construction of a bridge, in the MGNREG Scheme. He obtained the contract for supply of materials for the said work. In the pretext of construction of retaining wall, the 5th respondent is encroaching the Canal reducing its width, for widening the pathway.
7. The petitioner preferred complaints. The 2nd respondent-Joint Programme Co-ordinator and the 3rd respondent-Block Programme Officer made enquiries and found that the entire work is illegal and issued Ext.P6 Stop Memo. The 3rd respondent-Block Programme Officer issued Ext.P7 Stop Memo. However, the 5th respondent, with the active connivance of the 7th respondent-Secretary to Panchayat, proceeded with the work. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.19973/2020. This Court passed Ext.P8 interim order directing the Panchayat to give effect to Ext.P7 Stop Memo. The 2nd respondent-Joint Programme Co-ordinator, however, issued Ext.P9 communication to the 3rd respondent-Block Programme Officer directing resumption of the work. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.13949/2021. This Court passed Ext.P10 interim order restraining the respondents from r
