Varghese K.V vs The Ramankary Grama Panchayath
2021 Latest Caselaw 19299 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

         TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943

                           WP(C) NO. 3828 OF 2013

PETITIONER/S:

              VARGHESE K.V.
              AGED 57 YEARS
              S/O.VARGHESE, KOCHUPARAMBIL, PUTHUKKARI,
              MITHRAKKARI P.O., ALAPPUZHA-689 595.
              BY ADVS.
              SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
              SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
              SMT.T.J.SEEMA


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE RAMANKARY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAMANKARY P.O.,
              ALAPPUZHA-689 595.
     2        STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL
              ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.



              SRI.R.AZAD BABU,SC
              SMT. REJITHA RAJAN
              SRI. K.P. HARISH, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 3828/2013                      :2:




            Dated this the 14th day of September, 2021.

                               JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.

P1 and P2 demand notices issued by the Secretary of the Ramankary

Grama Panchayat. The contention advanced by the petitioner is that

he is an agricultural labourer residing nearby Puthukkari

Padasekharam and the said place is a waterlogged area, where there is

no cartable road except a small raised land for the people of the

locality to walk. According to the petitioner, it was the long felt need of

the locality to have a cartable road starting from Tharianparambu to

Venattumuttu.

2. Consequently, a beneficiary committee was constituted and

the petitioner was the convener of the said committee. According to

the petitioner, the project was executed without any complaint and the

bill amount was disbursed to the petitioner. However, the petitioner

has received Exts. P1 and P2 notices from the Secretary of the Grama

Panchayat dated 18.01.2013 directing him to pay the amount, failing

which recovery action was directed to be taken against the petitioner

under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.

3. When the matter was admitted to the files of this Court, on

15.02.2013, proceedings pursuant to Ext. P2 demand was stayed by

this Court and the stay is still in force.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. S.

Sanal Kumar and Smt. Rejitha Rajan appearing for Ramankary Grama

Panchayat, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

5. The facts and circumstances pointed out by the petitioner

would make it clear that the contentions are raised based on the

factual circumstances. The basic contention advanced by the

petitioner is that there was no complaint with respect to the work

carried out by the beneficiary committee of which the petitioner was

the convener and therefore, the Panchayat had no authority to issue

any demand notice for recovery of any amount from the petitioner.

6. In my considered opinion, it is a clear factual circumstance

which will have to be deciphered by a fact finding body. In fact, the

petitioner has approached this Court under a mistaken impression that

Ext. P2 is a demand notice issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery

Act, 1968. Since various factual circumstances have to be analysed in

order to identify the exact situation, it is only appropriate that the

petitioner is given liberty to object to Exts.P1 and P2, if the issues are

still surviving.

7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of,

granting liberty to the petitioner to submit suitable objection to Exts.P1

and P2 within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment and the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat is directed to

consider the same in accordance with law and attain finality at the

earliest and at any rate within one month thereafter. However, I make

it clear that if the proceedings pertaining to Exts.P1 and P2, under any

circumstances, are concluded, it shall not be reopened by the

Secretary.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2013.

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2013.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/True Copy/

PS To Judge.

rv