Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48758
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T. R. Ravi, J
LIJU M N – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 19189 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS, SRI.P.J.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN, SRI.JOEMON ANTONY, SHRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO, SHRI.LIGISH XAVIER, SMT.ANJANA P.V.
For the Respondents: SHRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR, SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SRI.P.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN, SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH, SHRI.KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU, SMT.P.LAKSHMI, SMT.AYSHA E.M., SHRI.HASHIM K.M., SHRI.ABUASIL A.K., SMT.HANIYA NAFIZA V.S., SHRI.MANU KRISHNA S.K., SHRI.M.I.INSAF MOOPPAN, SHRI.RISHI VINCENT, SMT.PRINCY XAVIER
The court dismissed the writ petition due to the absence of ongoing grievances after the respondent clarified her role in local governance.
Headnote:(A) Relevant laws include guidelines for local self-government and waste management duties outlined in local governance laws. The court recognized the autonomy of Haritha Karma Sena and assessed the respondent's role as limited to fulfilling the Panchayat’s mandate.
(B) Key principles: The petitioners’ concerns about interference were rendered moot by the respondent’s clarification regarding duties and responsibilities. The court emphasized adherence to established guidelines while managing local self-governance issues.
(C) Fact of the case: Petitioners, as office bearers of Haritha Karma Sena, sought relief against alleged unauthorized actions by the 5th respondent interfering with operations. The 5th respondent clarified her limited role concerning fund management, affecting the petitioners' claims.
(D)
Findings of Court:
The court noted that, as the 5th respondent's claim of merely carrying out the Panchayat's assigned work was affirmed, the petitioners' grievances no longer stood. (E) Issues included assessing the validity of the petitioners' concerns against the 5th respondent’s clarification. The court determined the crux of the issue rested on the duly acknowledged roles within the organization. (F)
Ratio Decidendi: The court adjudged that since the respondent was not interfering directly with the petitioners' duties, the petition was to be dismissed as the grievance was resolved. (G)
Result: The writ petition is closed.
JUDGMENT
The writ petition has been filed for a direction to restrain the 5th respondent from interfering with the affairs of Haritha Karma Sena. The petitioners are office bearers of consortium of Haritha Karma Sena in Cheranelloor Grama Panchayat. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is specifically stated that the 5th respondent is only doing the work entrusted by the Panchayat and she is not in charge of collection and fund management of Haritha Karma Sena from January, 2025, onwards.
In view of the above statement, the grievance of the petitioners cannot be said to be surviving any longer. The counter affidavit of the 5th respondent is recorded and this writ petition is closed.
