Mary James vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 11796 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

           FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                          WP(C).No.39460 OF 2015(F)


PETITIONER/S:

                MARY JAMES
                AGED 48 YEARS
                W/O.JAMES, PULLOLICKAL HOUSE, MATTUTHAVALAM, UDUMBAN
                CHOLA P.O., UDUMBAN COLA.

                BY ADV. SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR)

RESPONDENT/S:

       1        STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED THROUGH SECRETARIAT GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF
                GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 690 001.

       2        DISTRICT COLLECTOR
                COLLECTORATE, KUILIMALA, IDUKKI 685 509.

       3        UDUMBAN CHOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
                UDUMBANCHOLA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED THROUGH
                ITS SECRETARY PIN: 685 554.




                SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.04.2021,
     THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 39460/2015              :2:




              Dated this the 9th day of April, 2021.

                            JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to

dispose of Ext.P2 representation pending before the Secretary of the

Udumbanchola Grama Panchayat, the third respondent. Apparently,

the petitioner has applied for an amount of Rs. 75000/- for the

construction of a house in a scheme launched by the Local Self

Government Department. The petitioner was granted Rs.50,000/- by

the Panchayat. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that since

the petitioner applied for Rs.75,000/- for the construction of the

house, the Panchayat ought to have granted the same. But, in Ext.P1

sanction order, the Panchayat has stated that there is no scheme

available so as to enable the Panchayat to provide Rs.75,000/- to the

petitioner. Anyhow, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to

consider Ext.P2, if any scheme is pending so as to enable the

Panchayat to help the petitioner.

2. Therefore, after having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader, this writ

petition is disposed of directing the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat

to consider Ext.P2 in accordance with law at the earliest and at any

rate within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. I make it clear that the above direction is issued on the

presumption that there would be some scheme available with the

Panchayat so as to help the financially weaker sections of the society.

I also make it clear that the observations made above may not

be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter.

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1 3048/13 DATED 23/9/2013

EXHIBIT P2 P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01/10/201

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/True Copy/

PS To Judge.

rv