Aranmula Grama Panchayath vs Nss Karayogam No.234
2021 Latest Caselaw 13212 Ker

W.A.No. 787/2021                          :1:


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                      &

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

         THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1943

                              WA NO. 787 OF 2021

 JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2020 IN WP(C) 18456/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

            ARANMULA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ARANMULA P.O,
            PATHANAMTHITTA-PIN-689 532.

            BY ADVS. T.R.HARIKUMAR
                     ARJUN RAGHAVAN

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 4:
     1    NSS KARAYOGAM NO.234
          EDASSERYMALA, ARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.P. CHANDRASEKHARA NAIR,
          S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR.

     2      STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
            DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

     3      STATE CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE,
            LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT (LSGD), REPRESENTED BY
            ITS CONVENER, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

     4      THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR,
            SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, OOTTUKUZHY,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

            R1 BY ADV V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
            R2 & R3 BY SRI. TEK CHAND SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
            R4 BY SRI.K.B.PRADEEP

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No. 787/2021                          :2:


                   Dated this the 24th day of June, 2021.
                                 JUDGMENT

SHAJI P. CHALY,J.

This appeal is preferred by the third respondent in W.P.(C) No.

18456 of 2018 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge

dated 04.12.2020 in the aforesaid writ petition.

2. The subject issue relates to the building taken on rent by the

appellant Panchayat from a voluntary organisation namely NSS

Karayogam in order to conduct a Co-operative Training College. The

learned single Judge has taken note of the fact that Ext. P1 resolution

was passed by the Panchayat resolving to take on rent the building

bearing No. AP-I/28 owned by the NSS Karayogam, Edasserymala

within the limits of the appellant--Aranmula Grama Panchayat,

Pathanamthitta District. Resolution No.V(II) passed in the meeting

held on 04.08.2006 reads thus:

"Resolution No.V (II) in the meeting held on 04.08.2006

It is learned that junior diploma course is starting in the co- operative sector in the State. It is resolved that since it is agreed that the building bearing No. AP-I/28 owned by NSS Karayogam, Edasserymala in Aranmula Grama Panchayat, Pathanamthitta District, is agreed to rent out the building on the basis of the rent fixed at PWD (building) rate, the Grama Panchayat is allowed to pay the rent.

sd/- President."

3. Therefore, it is unequivocally clear from the resolution that it

was the Panchayat which has decided to take the building of the NSS

Karayogam on rent for running the college on the basis of the rent

fixed at PWD (building) rate, and the Grama Panchayat was allowed to

pay rent to the building owner. Needless to say, it is undisputed that

the building was occupied by the Panchayat on the terms agreed upon

by the Panchayat and the building owner.

4. The contention advanced by the appellant is that even though

the Grama Panchayat has taken such a decision, the same was

interfered with by the State Government under Section 191 of the

Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and declined permission to pay rent by the

Panchayat. Even though a review was filed to review the said decision

of the Government, that was dismissed by the State Government.

Taking note of the pros and cons of the matter, the learned single

Judge has found that even though there is no contract/agreement

entered into by and between the Panchayat and the NSS Karayogam,

since the Panchayat has passed a resolution to take the building on

lease from the said organisation and to pay rent, the landlord is

entitled to receive rent from the Panchayat and held as follows:

"10. The learned counsel for the Panchayat, then submitted that there was no formal rent agreement executed between the petitioner

and the Panchayat. It is true that there was no formal agreement, but the Panchayat cannot ignore the decision taken by them. The conduct of the Panchayat approaching the Government itself would clearly show that the Panchayat wants to honour the commitment made as per the decision. The resolution and the subsequent decision of the Government, all clearly would establish that the Panchayat wants to have the legal clothing to protect their action of obtaining the building from the petitioner. They failed in their attempt. Therefore, it is clearly shows that there was a contract between the petitioner and the Panchayat.

It is submitted now at the Bar, the Co-operative Training College is now shifted to a building owned by the Panchayat from 4.05.2018 onwards. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition has to be allowed and I do so. The Panchayat is directed to pay the rent as fixed by PWD, within a period of four months to the petitioner. It is open for the Government to initiate action against the persons who were responsible to obtain the building from the petitioner for housing a Co-operative Training College, in accordance with the Local Fund Audit Act and Rules, after effecting such payment."

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Arjun

Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the State Co-operative Union

Kerala--respondent No. 4, Sri. K. B. Pradeep and Sri. V.M.

Krishnakumar appeared for the NSS Karayogam No.234, respondent

No.1, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

6. The specific contention advanced by the learned counsel for

the appellant is that, the college run by the 4th respondent i.e., the

State Co-operative Union Kerala, the Panchayat is not a beneficiary of

the proceeds received by the 4th respondent. Therefore, the 4th

respondent is the Organisation liable to pay the arrears of rent to the

NSS Karayogam. It was also pointed out that the direction in the writ

petition as sought for by the NSS Karayogam was to direct the

Aranmula Grama Panchayat as well as the State Co-operative Union to

pay arrears of rent and therefore, the liability ought to have been

shouldered on the 4th respondent.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the NSS

Karayogam and the State Co-operative Union have submitted that the

building was taken on rent by the NSS Karayogam on the basis of the

resolution passed by the Panchayat. It was also pointed out that in fact

the Panchayat has persuaded the 4th respondent to conduct the

college within the Panchayat area on the specific understanding that

the Panchayat would pay the rent and therefore, the Panchayat is not

at liberty to turn around and slip away from its resolution.

8. We have evaluated the rival submissions made across the

Bar. It is an admitted fact that it was on the basis of Ext. P1 resolution

that the building was taken on rent by the Panchayat from the NSS

Karayogam. It is also an admitted fact that the rent was not paid by

the Panchayat to the NSS Karayogam. Merely because the resolution of

the Panchayat was interfered with by the State Government and the

review was also dismissed, that will not grant liberty to the Panchayat

from not paying rent to the building owner, especially for the fact that

the privity by and between the Panchayat and the writ petitioner was

constituted as per the resolution passed by the Panchayat. It is also

clear from the pleadings put forth by the parties that the college was

being functioned in the premises of the NSS Karayogam till a building

was constructed by the Panchayat during the year 2018. Therefore, we

have no hesitation to hold that the learned single Judge was right in

arriving at the conclusion that there was an agreement by and

between the Panchayat and NSS Karayogam. This we say because, the

Panchayat through its proceedings admit the material aspects

discussed above, which will in turn disables the Panchayat from

resiling from all those aspects.

9. Taking into account the facts and figures, we have no

hesitation to hold that the learned single Judge has correctly and

rightly appreciated the contentions put forth by the rival parties and

arrived at the final conclusions. Even though it was contended that the

subject issue is a civil dispute and therefore, a writ petition is not

maintainable, we are of the considered opinion that since there is no

dispute with respect to the material, factual and legal aspects involved

in the case, and the amount that is payable towards NSS Karayogam,

nothing stands in the way of the writ court considering the undisputed

matters, as is well settled under law.

10. Above all, the Panchayat is a statutory body created and

functioning under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994

and also discharging its duties in accordance with the rights, duties,

and powers conferred and obligated on it under the Constitution of

India and consequentially, the Panchayat cannot contend that the issue

involved is not a dispute coming under the public law remedy. In our

view, when there is no dispute as to the correctness of the resolution

deliberated above, and the amounts due, the Panchayat cannot make

a countervailing statement and refrain from its liabilities for the

payment of the rent amount due to the building owner. Cogitating, we

do not think that the appellant has made out a case of jurisdictional

error or other legal infirmities for interference in an intra court appeal

filed under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act 1958.

Resultantly, writ appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed,

however without causing prejudice to make any claims against the 4th

respondent in accordance with law, as is sought for by the appellant.

sd/-

S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv