Vellarada Grama Panchayath vs R.Mary
2022 Latest Caselaw 8323 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
   FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
                 WP(C) NO. 35004 OF 2016
PETITIONER:

         VELLARADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PANCAHMOODU P.O.,
         VELLARADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

         BY ADV SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR


RESPONDENTS:

    1    R.MARY
         AGED 64 YEARS,
         PONNIDINJAN PALLIVILA VEEDU,KILIYOOR,
         VELLARADA P.O.,NEYYATINKARA,
         TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT-695 010.

    2    THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
         INSTITUTIONS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    3    STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,LOCAL SELF
         GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,
         TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

OTHER PRESENT:

         R2 & 3 BY SRI.K.P.HARISH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION     (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP         FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022,    THE COURT ON THE SAME          DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
    W.P(C)35004/2016
                                      2



                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of July, 2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the

following relief:

"a) Issue a writ of certiorari, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Exhibit P4 and quash the same."

2. The writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P4 order

passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government

Institutions, in Complaint No.267 of 2011 dated 1.12.2015,

whereby the complaint filed by the 1 st respondent was allowed

by the Ombudsman and directed the petitioner Grama

Panchayat to grant the balance amount due to the

complainant available through a Scheme, namely Indira

Gandhi Awas Yojana, sponsored by the Central Government,

within ten months from the date of receipt of a copy of the

order. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the

said order, the writ petition is filed.

3. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioner

is that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner-Panchayat,

in the objection filed before the Ombudsman, is considered W.P(C)35004/2016

and the Ombudsman and without appreciating the entire facts

and circumstances and benefits of the scheme, has directed

the Panchayat to release the balance amount within ten

months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is the

further case of the petitioner that the Scheme for

old-age/handicaps launched for the period 2011-12, is not in

force at present. At the same time, Indira Gandhi Awas

Yojana, sponsored by the Central Government have enhanced

the Scheme to Rs.2,00,000/- during 2015 and thereby the 1 st

respondent has sought for enhanced payment.

4. It is the paramount contention advanced by the

petitioner that Indira Gandhi Awas Yojana is a Scheme

sponsored by the Central Government and in order to secure

the benefits of the same, the 1st respondent ought to have

approached the Central Government or the State Government.

It was ignoring the facts and circumstances that the

Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions has

directed the Panchayat to sanction and disburse further

payment of Rs.1,25,000/-. It is further submitted that the

Panchayat is not having any such fund to release to the 1 st

respondent. Therefore, the compulsion made Exhibit P4 is W.P(C)35004/2016

illegal, and arbitrary liable to be interfered with by this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.J.S.

Ajith Kumar, learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. K.P.

Harish and perused the pleadings and material on record.

6. Though notice is served on 1 st respondent/

complainant, there is no appearance. Exhibit P4 order passed

by the Ombudsman shows that the Ombudsman has taken into

consideration the release of an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the

complainant by the petitioner Panchayat under the Old-age

scheme of the Panchayat. However, it is to be noted that the

1st respondent has raised a claim for enhancement on the basis

of Indira Gandhi Awas Yojana with respect to housing scheme,

which is to be sanctioned by the Central Government or State

Government, in accordance with the scheme launched and

Panchayat is not having any fund to disburse to the 1 st

respondent. I find force in the said contention because unless

and until sufficient amount is provided to the Panchayat on the

basis of any scheme, or on the basis of any scheme launched

by the Panchayat, the Panchayat cannot be insisted upon to

make any payments.

7. In that view of the matter and also taking into account W.P(C)35004/2016

the fact that the scheme in question is a Central Government

Scheme and since the 1st respondent has not approached the

Central Government to secure the benefits of the scheme, I do

not think that the direction issued by the Ombudsman to

release the balance amount due under the Old-age scheme, on

the basis of Central scheme launched, as specified above is a

correct approach.

In that view of the matter, it can be seen that the order

passed by the Ombudsman is arbitrary and illegal, justifiable to

be interfered in a proceeding under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Accordingly, Exhibit P4 is quashed and

the order passed by the Ombudsman is vacated. However, it

is made clear that if the Central Scheme is still existing, the 1 st

respondent will be at liberty to approach the statutory

authority.

Sd/-

Shaji P. Chaly, Judge

sou.

W.P(C)35004/2016

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35004/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 02/05/2015 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 30/11/2015 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/05/2015 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/12/2015 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 04/01/2012