SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12557

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
JESTIN JAWARAJ – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO.2637 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.RAKESH
For the Respondents: SRI.N.B. SUNIL NATH, SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN, SRI.T.M.KHALID, SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA

Due process requires applicants to be notified and fairly considered for benefits in public schemes.

Headnote:This judgment examines the petitioner's challenge to the decision of the Grama Sabha rejecting his application for benefits under the Life Mission Kerala Scheme, citing the community applicant status and issues regarding habitable residence. The court found that the rejection was unjustified, not properly notified, and directed reconsideration of the application. The court emphasized the need for due process in the application review and mandated its resolution within twelve weeks. Final order: The decision of Ext.P4 is set aside.

Table of Content
1. reassessment of application fairness in public benefit entitlement. (Para 1 , 2)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) community. He submitted Ext.P2 application before the 4th respondent for inclusion and the benefits under the Life Mission Kerala Scheme. By the minutes at Ext.P4 of the respondent Grama Sabha, the petitioner’s claim came to be rejected, alleging that the petitioner has a habitable residence. It is seeking to challenge the decision at Ext.P4, as above, that the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Heard Sri.K. Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.N.B. Sunil Nath, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2, 3 and 6, and Smt.K.P. Susmitha, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

3. A photograph of the so-called “habitable residence”

of the petitioner is produced along with the writ petition at Ext.P5. If the state of affairs as reflected in Ext.P5 is correct, then the consideration made in Ext.P4 does not appear to be justified. The thatched building, if it can be called so, as seen from Ext.P5, cannot be stated to be a habitable building, so as to deny the benefit of the Life Mission Kerala Scheme, to the petitioner herein. This Court also notices that the decision at Ext.P4 has been taken without putting the petitioner on notice.

In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires a revisit at the hands of the Grama Sabha. Accordingly, the decision taken in Ext.P4 minutes as far as it pertains to the petitioner herein, would stand set aside. There will be a direction to the 5th respondent Secretary of the Panchayat, to place the petitioner’s application for fresh consideration by the Grama Sabha. An appropriate notice should also be issued to the petitioner before a decision is taken on the application. A decision, as above, is to be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top