Kerala High Court
Saidu Meeran S vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17793 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 SAIDU MEERAN S.,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED SULTHAN (LATE), 17/982 METHIPALAYAM STREET
PALAKKAD- 678 001.
2 SUBASH B,
AGED 47 YEARS. S/O BALAN, AMBALAPURAM HOUSE, WEST YAKKARA,
PALAKKAD PIN- 678 001.
BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001.
2 PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY ,
MUNICIPAL OFFICE PALAKKAD- 678 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3 SECRETARY ,
PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY
MUNICIPAL OFFICE PALAKKAD- 678 001.
4 M/S E DIGIT BUSINESS SOLUTION,
18/21 (10), HOT CENTRE STADIUM BYEPASS ROAD, FORTMAIDAN,
PALAKKAD- 678 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY ABDUL RAHMAN.
ADDL R5 M.HAMSA
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE MUHAMMAD, PALM PLAZA, KALMANDAPAM,
PALAKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
[IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 1/11/2022 IN I.A.2/2022 WPC
17793/2022]
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SC, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
A.T.ANILKUMAR
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
V.SHYLAJA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No. 17793 of 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024
The 1st petitioner is the councillor of Ward
No.28 and the 2nd petitioner is the councillor of Ward
No.17 of the Palakkad Municipality. As per Ext.P1, the
Palakkad Municipality decided to install surveillance
cameras in Palakkad Town and purchase vehicles for
solid waste management. The funds were to be granted
by Cochin Shipyard Limited under their CSR plan for the
year 2018-2019 towards the Swatch Bharat Mission, for
which Rupees One Crore was sought to be utilized for the
above purpose.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that as per Ext.P3, notice inviting tenders was issued for
carrying out the above work and the 4 th respondent being
the lowest tenderer was selected. The learned counsel
for the petitioners submits that on the request of the 4 th
respondent, additional conditions were included as per
Ext.P8, whereby conditions for putting up advertisement
boards and maintenance were incorporated.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners claims
that these were all unilateral decisions taken by the
Municipality, without recourse to any tender process and
the erection of advertisement poles was not a matter
relatable to Ext.P1. It is alleged that these conditions
were incorporated only to help the 4 th respondent. The
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on a
complaint made by the petitioners, an enquiry was
ordered as per Ext.P10. Petitioners seek to quash Ext.P5
to the extent it gives right to the 4 th respondent to collect
the revenue from the advertisements to be erected in the
poles for fixing CCTV cameras as per Ext.P2 tender notice
and also for direction to respondents 2 and 3, to initiate
fresh tender proceedings for the grant of right to erect
advertisements on the poles to be erected for fixing
CCTV cameras as per Ext.P2 tender notice.
4. A statement was filed on behalf of 2 nd and 3rd
respondents. It was stated that the petitioners being the
Councilors, who were parties to the decisions taken by
the Municipality, though they dissented, were in the
minority and were bound by the decision of the majority.
It is also stated that the petitioners cannot maintain the
instant writ petition. At the most, they could have filed a
public interest litigation.
5. Additional 5th respondent, a third party was
also impleaded in the writ petition. A preliminary
objection was raised by the respondents, stating that the
petitioners, being parties to the decision of the
Municipality, though they have dissented, once a
decision is taken, it becomes a decision of the
Municipality, and the petitioners cannot be allowed to
challenge the same.
6. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent has
cited the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in
Bihar Public Service Commission and Another v.
Dr. Shiv Jatan Thakur and Others [1994 Supp (3) SCC
220] and also judgments of this Court reported in
Thomas Chandy v. The State of Kerala [(2017) 4 KLT
918] and Dr. V.G. Pradeed Kumar v. The Revenue
Divisional Officer, Malappuram [(2021) 5 KLT 51] for
the proposition that the Councilors of the Municipality
cannot question the validity of a decision taken by the
Municipality, which acted as a body and the decision of
the majority becomes the decision of the Municipality,
even though the petitioners might have been dissenting
members.
7. That apart, going by Section 57 (1) of the
Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, the Government may, suo-
motu or on a reference by the Chairperson, the
Secretary, or a Councilor of the Municipality or on a
petition received from a citizen, cancel or amend a
resolution passed or a decision taken by the council,
which in their opinion (a) has not been legally passed or
taken; or (b) is in excess or abuse of the powers
conferred by this Act or any other law; or (c) is likely to
endanger human life, health safety, communal harmony
or public peace, or is likely to lead to a riot or quarrel; or
(d) has violated the guidelines issued by the Government
in the matter of implementation of plans, schemes or
programmes or the conditions of grants.
8. A decision taken by the body, has to be
respected by everyone, including those who dissented to
the same. It is not that the petitioners are remediless as
they can move the Government under Section 57 of the
Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, in case of any complaint as
regards any decision taken by the Municipality.
Under such circumstances, without any expression of
merit on the contentions raised in the writ petition,
finding that the petitioners have no locus to maintain this
writ petition and also in the light of the principles stated
in the above referred judgments, this writ petition is
dismissed, making it clear that this Court has not
considered the correctness of the actions taken or on the
grant of tender to the 4th respondent.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P
JUDGE
SK
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17793/2022
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 1709 DATED
14.05.2018
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING THE TENDER NO.
E1-13523/18/CCTV SURVEILLANCE DATED 23.11.2018
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE SUMMARY DATED
08.03.2019
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK SELECTION ORDER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO. 247/201819 DATED
25.01.2019.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.04.2019
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C2/2978/2019
DATED 29.07.2019
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 2831 DATED
06.11.2019.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 01.02.2020.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING
DATED 06.03.2020
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18.06.2020
BEARING NO.E8-13523/18
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. E8-13523/18 DATED
13.08.2020
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.05.2022
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS REVEALING THE SITE AND
LOCATION OF ERECTION OF POLES
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.7.2019 OF THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD, TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :
Exhibit R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.247/2018-19 DATED
25.01.2019
Exhibit R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ACCOMPANYING
THE TENDER DOCUMENT ALONG WITH THE TENDER FORM
