MANOJ KUMAR N T vs ADDL R5 STATE OF KERALA - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 51172

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 51172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941
WP(C).No.21365 OF 2018(U)
PETITIONER:
MANOJ KUMAR N.T., AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O.THANKAPPAN K.P., NOMBRAYIL HOUSE,
THOMMANKUTHU P.O.,MANNOOKKADU, IDUKKI DISTRICT
SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SMT.MARIA ROY
SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL
SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2
THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
REVENUE COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033
3
THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF
PANCHAYAT, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033
4
IDUKKI JILLA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUYILIMALA,
PAINAVU-685 603
ADDL.
5
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.06.2019 IN IA
1/19.
SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN V.ALAPATT, SC.
SRI.SHAMJI RAM, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.10.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).40452/2018(F), WP(C).16587/2019(W),
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.21365 OF 2018(U)&CON.CASES
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941
WP(C).No.40452 OF 2018(F)
PETITIONER:
SENAPATHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, SENAPATHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
SENAPATHY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685619.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
SRI.VINO JOSE
SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
RESPONDENTS:
1
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT.
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2
THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT, REVENUE COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, PUBLIC
OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
3
THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, PUBLIC OFFICE
BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
4
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
SRI.SHYAM G.RAM, GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.10.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).21365/2018(U), WP(C).16587/2019(W),
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.21365 OF 2018(U)&CON.CASES
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941
WP(C).No.16587 OF 2019(W)
PETITIONER:
INFANT THOMAS, IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
MEMBER, ADIMALY DIVISION, IDUKKI, RESIDING AT
MATTEL HOUSE, MACHIPLAVU, ADIMALY, IDUKKI-685561.
BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4
THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
5
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI DISTRICT
PANCHAYATH, KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU P.O, IDUKKI-685603.
6
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
(IMPLEMENTATION), IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYATH,
PAINAVU P.O, IDUKKI-685603.
WP(C).No.21365 OF 2018(U)&CON.CASES
4
7
THE IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYATH,
OFFICE OF THE IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYATH,
KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU P.O, IDUKKI-685603.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
8
THE IDUKKI DISTRICT PLANNING COMMITTEE.
OFFICE OF THE IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYATH,
KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU P.O, IDUKKI-685603. REPRESENTED
BY ITS CONVENER/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.
SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN V.ALAPATT, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.10.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).21365/2018(U), WP(C).40452/2018(F),
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.21365 OF 2018(U)&CON.CASES
5
'CR'

[WP(C).21365/2018, WP(C).40452/2018,

& WP(C).16587/2019]

Dated this the 16th day of October 2019

These writ petitions call focus to a very peculiar problem

faced by the various Local Self Government Institutions with

respect to funding for their public projects and activities.

2. Since all the three cases involve similar circumstances

and since the prayers made are also analogous to each other, I

deem it appropriate to hear all of them together.

3. For the sake of convenience, I deem to take W.P.(C)

No.40452/2018 as the lead case and all references to persons

and documents in this judgment, unless otherwise specified,

will be as appearing in this writ petition.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.40452/2018 is a Panchayat;

while the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.21365/2018 and

16587/2019 are members of Idukki District Panchayat.

5. The petitioners allege that with respect to funding of

projects being made by the various Local Self Government

Institutions, the Government had initially issued Ext.P1 order,

which was in force till March, 2018, whereby the respective

Institutions were authorised to meet all expenditure of

spill-over works against the current year allotment. They say

that this position was changed through Ext.P2 Government

Order, which was issued on 17.03.2018, wherein such spill-over

was prohibited.

6. The petitioners say that various Local Self Government

Institutions approached the Government and consequently,

Ext.P3 order was issued on 20.03.2018, withdrawing Ext.P2 and

virtually restoring the position as was available when Ext.P1

was in force. They allege that, however, the Government has

now issued Ext.P4 order - bearing No.D.A.1/439/2018/LSGD

dated 02.05.2018 - whereby they have classified the categories

of projects into two - firstly, those in which work had already

begun as on 01.04.2018 and secondly, those in which bills have

been presented before the Treasury by the end of March, 2018.

They say that the order specifies that with respect to the first

category, only those projects in which work had begun as on

01.04.2018 will be allowed to use spill-over funds for

completion; while the latter category includes projects, the bills

of which are placed in the queue for payment including life

mission projects.

7. The petitioners say that with respect to all other

projects, the rigor, as originally brought in by the Government

through Ext.P2, has been now reintroduced. The petitioners

add that, as is clear from paragraph 3 of Ext.P4, all other

projects are denied the benefit of spill-over and they are

required to finish the work therein from the funds available for

the year 2018-19 and no other. The petitioners contend that

Ext.P4 virtually operates retrospectively since it was issued only

on 02.05.2019, but refers to projects relating to 2017-18. They,

therefore, say that the impact of Ext.P4 is such that the public

projects already begun by the various Local Self Government

Institutions would suffer, since they would not find enough

funding - they being prevented from using the spill-over funds

for the current year. They, therefore, pray that Ext.P4 to that

extent be set aside.

8. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of

the official respondents, submits that Ext.P4 order has been

issued by the Government to ensure that all the Local Self

Government Institutions act diligently and vigilantly so as to

ensure that projects of the current year are completed in the

said year itself and that it is not delayed unduly and without

reason. He says that the intention behind Ext.P4, being to

ensure good governance and speedy implementation of

projects, this Court may not interdict any of its directions. On

the question of retrospectivity, the learned Government Pleader

submits that the current year project began on 01.04.2018,

whereas Ext.P4 was issued on 02.05.2018 within a month's

time. He says, therefore, that the petitioners cannot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document