Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36876
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MANJULA CHELLUR , JC, A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
DILEEP MATHEW KOLLAMULA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 22796/2013
['B PRAMOD']
The court held that procedural adherence and applicant-specific approaches are essential in the implementation of welfare schemes.
Headnote:
Public Interest Litigation - Non-Implementation of Welfare Scheme - Act Section List - The court addressed the inaction of authorities regarding the 'Laksham Veedu' scheme, emphasizing eligibility criteria and the need for procedural adherence, ultimately directing timely consideration of representations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation alleging non-implementation of the 'Laksham Veedu' scheme, asserting delays in allotting residential units due to the inaction of local authorities despite representations made to them.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the claims of delay but recognized that any issues of individual eligibility could be addressed by specific applicants in court, thus emphasizing that there must be due processing of applications as per the prescribed procedures.
Issues: Whether there was unreasonable delay in the allotment of residential units under the 'Laksham Veedu' scheme due to the inaction of revenue authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while general delays could be presented, individual applicants must take up specific grievances in court, and affirmed timely consideration of representations submitted to authorities.
Final Decision: The writ petition was closed with a directive for timely action on the representation.
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Petitioner is before us in a public interest litigation complaining non implementation of 'Laksham Veedu' scheme in its real effect. According to him, though the said scheme was set up 20 years back, the object of providing residence to people who are socially and economically disadvantaged is not achieved and it is only on account of lethargic attitude of the revenue authorities. According to the petitioner, in spite of submitting representation to the second respondent District Collector as per Exhibit P5 and so also sixth respondent Grama Panchayat concerned, no action whatsoever is taken for allotment of vacant residential unit constructed under the 'Laksham Veedu' scheme.
Therefore, he has sought for the following reliefs:
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or order commanding the respondents to allot 12 vacant residential units constructed under the 'Laksham veedu WP(C).22796/13 scheme' within the limits of 6th respondent Panchayat to the eligible familities at the earlier;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or order commanding the 2nd and 6th respondents to dispose of Ext.P5 and Ext.P7 representations respectively, at the earliest.”
2. Learned Government Pleader submits, there are certain conditions prescribing eligibility to get allotment of houses constructed for the above said scheme and there is a procedure to be followed for such allotment which might have caused some delay but not intentional. However, he submits, the representation submitted to the District Collector as per Exhibit P5 will be considered and proper action will be taken.
3. We have gone through the contents of the Writ Petition.
What we notice is there is a general allegation that on account of inaction on the part of the revenue and Panchayat officials, there is delay in the process of allotting houses under the scheme to the deserving applicants. If any particular applicant is not allotted in spite of being eligible, it is always open to the said applicant to approach the Court seeking proper relief. There may be procedural impediments of various nature depending upon the WP(C).22796/13 details given by the applicants. There cannot be uniform yardstick to consider the applications.
Therefore, recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that Exhibit P5 representation will be considered by the District Collector within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, we close the Writ Petition.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE vgs8.11
