Kerala High Court
The Palakkad Municipality vs The State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2022
WP(C) NO. 10642 OF 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 10642 OF 2013
PETITIONER/S:
THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD-
678001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
SAPHALYAM COMPLEX, TRIDA BUILDING, UNIVERSITY P.O.,
PALAYALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.
3 M.HARIKRISHNAN
RESIDING AT MANNAZHI (SAKETHAM), KADAMPAZHIPURAM,
PALAKKAD-678633.
BY ADV SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R3
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10642 OF 2013 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.10642 of 2013
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
(i) Call for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P2 and
quash the same by the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari
or other appropriate writ , order or direction
(ii) Declare that the second respondent cannot interfere in
the functioning of the Municipality unless as stipulated under
Section 271J of the Panchayat Raj Act.
(iii) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this
Honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case." [SIC]
2. The petitioner - Municipality is aggrieved by Ext.P2
order by which the Ombudsman for Local Self Government
Institutions passed certain directions. According to the
Ombudsman, strange procedure is adopted by the Palakkad
Municipality to change the mutation. It is also stated by the
Ombudsman that the Municipal Council has passed a resolution
deciding to charge different rates for the purpose of changing
the name of ownership of the persons. According to the
Ombudsman, the slab is fixed in accordance with the price
shown in the documents, which start from Rs.100/- and ends at
Rs. 50,000/-. It is observed by the Hon'ble Ombudsman that
there is no statutory backing and there is no rule making power
for the Municipality to do the same. So it is not only undesirable
but also absolutely necessary for the Municipal council not to
take illegal decision and therefore, it is directed to reconsider
the decision, which according to the Ombudsman is necessary
because the Municipality has exceeded its limit in doing so.
There is also a direction to the Principal Secretary of the Local
Self Government Department, Government Secretariat,
Thiruvananthapuram in order to bring it to the notice of the
Local Self Government Institutions about their power in such
matters and also to inform them that the power is vested only
with the Government and that too under the enactment. It is
also stated in the order that after reconsideration, the
Municipality has to make reimbursement of the amount to the
persons from whom it has been collected when they request for
the same. Aggrieved by this order, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
Ext.P2 order passed by the Municipality is without jurisdiction
and it is beyond the powers of the Ombudsman under Sec.271J
of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The counsel for the petitioner
submitted that there is nothing wrong in Ext. P1 procedure
adopted by the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that the
Ombudsman passed Ext.P2 order without giving an opportunity
of hearing and without giving an opportunity to file an
objection. The counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent
submitted that there is nothing wrong in Ext.P2 order. The
counsel submitted that Ext.P1 is without backing of any law.
5. This Court considered Ext.P2 order. Even as per
Ext.P2, the Government is the authority to look into this
matter. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not able
to file any objection to the complaint. In such circumstances,
according to me, the matter can be referred to the Government
for a decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and the 3rd respondent. For facilitating the
Government to decide the matter, Ext.P2 can be set aside.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following
manner :
1) Ext.P2 is set aside.
2) The petitioner and the 3rd respondent shall submit
a representation narrating their contentions before the
1st respondent within three weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
3) Once those representations are received, the 1st
respondent will consider those representations and pass
appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.
4) The above exercise should be completed by the 1 st
respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
SD/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10642/2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF
RATES.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED
BY R2 DT.18-12-2012.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
DATED NIL.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY
ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF URBAN
AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
19.7.2013
EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 7.5.2013
T
