Kerala High Court
A.M Subair vs Majeed K. K on 31 October, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WA NO. 2311 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.09.2025 IN WP(C) NO.18477 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
A.M SUBAIR
AGED 55 YEARS
ELAVUMKUDY HOUSE, PONJASSERY P.O, KUNNATHUNAD,
ERNAKULAM (DT), PIN - 683547
BY ADVS.
SRI.JESTIN MATHEW
SMT.KRISHNA PRABHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AYUSH
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002
2 NATIONAL AYUSH MISSION
OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL AYUSH MISSION, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN
- 695035
3 CHIEF ENGINEER
NATIONAL AYUSH MISSION KERALA, OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL
AYUSH MISSION, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695035
2
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
4 DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER (DPM)
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER (DPM)
NATIONAL AYUSH MISSION, CAMP OFFICE, DISTRICT AYURVEDA
HOSPITAL, KACHERIPADY, ERNAKULAM (DT), PIN - 682018
5 DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER HOMEO
KUSUMAGIRI P.O, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM (DT), PIN - 682030
6 VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
VENGOLA P.O PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM (DT), REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 683556
7 SECRETARY
VENGOLA P.O PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM (DT), REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 683556
8 HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE(HMC)
GOVERNMENT HOMEO DISPENSARY,VENGOLA REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMEO
DISPENSARY, VENGOLA, PIN - 683556
9 ADDL.R9: NIYAS K.A.,
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, KEELATH KIZHAKKAN,
PONJASSERY P.O., VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK -
683 547. (ADDL.R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
21.08.2025 IN IA NO.2/2025 IN WP(C) NO.18477/2025.)
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.SRINATH, SC, AYUSH MISSION
SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE, SC, VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SRI.IMAM GREGORIOUS KARAT, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2025 ALONG WITH
WA NOS 2332 AND 2353 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WA NO. 2332 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.09.2025 IN WP(C) NO.29164 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 RESHEED N.B.
AGED 50 YEARS
SON OF BAVA, NADUKUDIYIL HOUSE, PONJASSERY P.O.,
THANDEKKAD, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683547
2 MUHAMMED SHIBILY V.A
AGED 46 YEARS
SON OF ALIAR V.M., VANIYAKKATTU HOUSE, THANDEKKAD,
MUDIKKAL P.O, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 683547
BY ADV SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT AYUSH
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695002
2 VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
VENGOLA P.O PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM (DT), REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 683556
4
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
3 SECRETARY
VENGOLA P.O PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM (DT)., PIN - 683556
4 HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (HMC)
GOVERNMENT HOMEO DISPENSARY, VENGOLA REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMEO
DISPENSARY, VENGOLA,, PIN - 683556
5 NATIONAL AYUSH MISSION
OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL AYUSH MISSION, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN
- 695035
6 JUNIOR CONSULTANT ENGINEER (CENTRAL)
NATIONAL AYUSH MISSION, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695035
7 K.A. ABOOBACKER
S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KOOLIYADAN, PONJASSERY P.O.,
VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK PIN - 683547
(ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 21.8.2025 IN IA NO.1 OF 2025 IN WPC 29164 OF
2025)
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.SRINATH, SC, AYUSH MISSION
SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE, SC, VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SRI.IMAM GREGORIOUS KARAT, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2025 ALONG WITH
WA NOS. 2311 AND 2353 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
5
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WA NO. 2353 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.09.2025 IN WP(C) NO.17119 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT:
A.M SUBAIR
AGED 55 YEARS
ELAVUMKUDY HOUSE, PONJASSERY P.O, KUNNATHUNAD,
ERNAKULAM (DT), PIN - 683547
BY ADVS.
SRI.JESTIN MATHEW
SMT.KRISHNA PRABHA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:
1 MAJEED K. K.
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. KUNJU MUHAMMED, KIZHAKKAN, PONJASSERY P.O.,
THANDAKAD, VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN -
683547
2 NISHAD K. H
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. HANEEFA, KOPPARAMBIL, PONJASSERY P.O., THANDAKAD,
VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN - 683547
3 VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR -
6
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
PUTHENKURISH RD, VENGOLA, KERALA, PIN - 683554
4 THE SECRETARY
VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR -
PUTHENKURISH RD, VENGOLA, KERALA, PIN - 683554
5 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AYUSH DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
PIN - 695001
6 DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER
HOMEO DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE (HOMOEO),
KUSUMAGIRI. P.O, IMG JUNCTION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682030
7 STEEL INDUSTRIALS KERALA LIMITED (SILK)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, STEEL INDUSTRIALS KERALA
LIMITED SILK NAGAR, ATHANI P. O., MULAMGUNNATHUKAVU,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680581
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.SRINATH, SC, AYUSH MISSION
SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE, SC, VENGOLA GRAMA
PANCHAYAT
SRI.IMAM GREGORIOUS KARAT, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2025 ALONG WITH
WA NOS.2311 AND 2332 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
7
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
W.A.No.2311 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.
18477 of 2025, W.A.No.2332 of 2025 is filed by the petitioners in
W.P.(C)No.29164 of 2025, and W.A.No.2353 of 2025 is filed by the
additional 6th respondent in W.P.(C)No.17119 of 2025, under
Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the
common judgment dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge in those writ petitions. Since the issue involved in all these
writ appeals is the same, they are being disposed of by this
common judgment. For convenience of reference, the parties and
documents are referred to as in W.A.No.2311 of 2025, unless
otherwise stated.
2. The appellant in W.A.No.2311 of 2025 and
W.A.No.2353 of 2025 is a member of Ward No.2 of the 6 th
respondent Vengola Grama Panchayat. A Homeo Dispensary has
been functioning on the 2nd floor of the Panchayat shopping
complex on rent, situated in Ward No.2. According to the
appellant, since the dispensary is functioning on the 2 nd floor, it
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
poses significant challenges for elderly individuals and patients, as
it is very difficult to climb stairs due to physical limitations and
health conditions. Under the said circumstances, the appellant
came up with a proposal to shift the Homeo dispensary from the
present building to a property offered by him for the construction
of a new building. Accordingly, as per Ext.P4 gift deed dated
23.11.2023, the appellant gifted 2.43 Ares of his property situated
in resurvey Nos.113/5/2/2 and 113/6/2/3 of Vengola Village to
the 6th respondent, Panchayat. Subsequently, the 6th respondent
included the said property in its asset register. Thereafter, the 4 th
respondent issued Ext.P5 letter to the appellant regarding the
inclusion of the Homeo Dispensary under the National Ayush
Mission State Annual Action Plan 2024-2025. The 3rd respondent
Chief Engineer, National Ayush Mission Kerala, issued Ext.P6 letter
dated 11.09.2024 to the 7th respondent stating that the work for
the construction of Government Homeo Dispensary Vengola has
been approved in the State Annual Action Plan of the National
Ayush Mission Kerala for the year 2024-2025.
2.1. Some persons submitted a complaint before the 7th
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
respondent against the relocation of the Homeo Dispensary.
Thereafter, the President of Vengola Grama Panchayat issued
Ext.P7 notice dated 13.12.2024 regarding the meeting to be held
on 16.12.2024, and issue No.37 therein was regarding the letter
of the 5th respondent requesting to approve the draft plan of the
building proposed to be constructed with National Ayush Mission
fund for Homeo Dispensary. Since the 7th respondent has not
taken any action for approval of the draft plan of the building, the
appellant approached this Court with W.P.(C)No.45543 of 2024
seeking a direction against the 7th respondent to approve the draft
plan of the building. Based on the submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the 7th respondent that the Panchayat has
already handed over the property to the Government for execution
of the project, and therefore no building permit from the
Panchayat is required, this Court, by Ext.P8 judgment dated
19.12.2024, directed the respondent therein to ensure that the
undertaking given by the Panchayat is complied with. The 'SILK',
a public sector institution, was duly entrusted with the task of
constructing the building for shifting the Homeo Dispensary. But
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
the Panchayat committee meeting held on 15.02.2025 took Ext.P9
decision to cancel the earlier decision unanimously taken by the
committee on 15.03.2023 to establish the Homeo Dispensary in
the property gifted by the appellant. Contending that by non-
compliance of Ext.P8 judgment dated 19.12.2024, the respondent
therein has committed contempt of Court, the appellant
approached this Court by filing Con.Case No.746 of 2025. By
Ext.P10 judgment dated 11.04.2025, this Court closed the
contempt case, holding that a memo has been submitted by the
respondents by which a statement of the respondent was
produced, and it is discernible therefrom that the directions issued
by this Court are complied with.
2.2. The appellant would further contend that in the
Panchayat committee meeting held on 22.03.2025, 16 members
out of 21 informed that they stick to the decision taken on
15.02.2025 to cancel the earlier decision unanimously taken by
the committee on 15.03.2023 to establish the Dispensary in the
property given by the appellant. Ext.P14 mass petition signed by
704 people residing in the locality was submitted before various
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
authorities, including the 7th respondent, along with a covering
letter dated 16.11.2024, requesting that the Homeo Dispensary is
to be constructed in the property gifted by the appellant.
Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court with
W.P.(C)No.18477 of 2025 seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) issue any writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ or direction directing the 8th respondent to approve the
Detailed Project Report (DPR) prepared by the SILK for the
construction of Homeo Dispensary in the 6th respondent
panchayat in a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) issue any writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ or direction directing the respondents to complete the
Government Homeopathy dispensary building in a time
bound manner.
(iii) issue any writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ
to quash decision No.32(1) in Ext.P9 of the Vengola Grama
Panchayat Committee and agenda No.29 in Ext. P11 of
Vengola Grama Panchayat Committee".
2.3. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.29164 of 2025 are
residents of Ward No.2 of Vengola Grama Panchayat. The 1st
petitioner therein is a member of the Hospital Management
Committee of the Panchayat. They filed the said writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, supporting the stand
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
of the appellant in W.A.No.2311 of 2025 seeking the following
reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to
set aside decision No.32(1) in Ext.P4 and agenda No.29 in
Ext.P5 of Vengola Grama Panchayath Committee.
(ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or
order to quash Ext. P6.
(iii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to
quash decision taken by the Hospital Management
Committee in Ext. P10.
(iv) declare that Exts.P4 and P5 are not legally valid.
(v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
or direction directing the respondents to implement the
Ext.P1 decision of the Panchayath Committee of the 2nd
respondent".
2.4. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.17119 of 2025 are also
persons residing within the limits of Vengola Grama Panchayat,
who are against the shifting of the Homeo Dispensary from the
present place to the property gifted by the appellant. Hence, they
filed that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the respondents not to
relocate the Government Homeo Dispensary from the
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
Vengola Grama Panchayat Building located at M H Kavala on
the Aluva-Munnar Road.
ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring
that respondents 3 and 4 have no authority to relocate the
Government Homeo Dispensary from the Vengola Grama
Panchayat Building located at M H Kavala on the Aluva-
Munnar Road while Ext.P5 decision taken by the 1st
respondent is in force".
2.5. The additional 9th respondent self-impleaded in
W.P.(C)No.18477 of 2025 by filing I.A.No.2 of 2025. In the
affidavit filed in support of the impleading application, he took a
stand that relocation of the Homeo Dispensary will result in
irreparable hardships to the people of the locality, including the
additional 9th respondent. He produced Annexures R9(a) and
R9(b) documents along with that application. Along with I.A.No.1
of 2025, the appellant has produced Exts.P15 and P16 documents
in that writ petition.
2.6. The additional 7th respondent in W.P.(C)No.29164 of
2025 got himself impleaded by filing I.A.No.1 of 2025 in that writ
petition. He also took a stand that the shifting of the Homeo
Dispensary to the property gifted by the appellant will cause
irreparable hardships to him. He produced Annexures R7(a) and
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
R7(b) documents along with the said interlocutory application.
2.7. The appellant self-impleaded as additional 6th
respondent in W.P.(C)No.17119 of 2025 by filing I.A.No.2 of 2025.
He produced Exts.R6(a) to R6(m) documents along with I.A.No.3
of 2025 filed in that writ petition.
2.8. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the
materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned
common judgment, dismissed W.P.(C)Nos.18477 of 2025 and
29164 of 2025 on merits. W.P.(C)No.17119 of 2025 was
dismissed, holding it as infructuous. Paragraphs 13, 14 and the
last paragraph of that judgment read thus:
'13. Whether to retain a Homeopathy Dispensary at the
existing location and whether it is to be shifted to another
place is a policy matter to be taken by the Panchayat taking
note of various aspects affecting the issue, including the
convenience of the general public. Though the Panchayat
Committee had earlier taken a decision to relocate the
Homeopathy Dispensary to another place, in a land gifted
for construction of the Dispensary, taking into consideration
the public demand, the Committee by a majority decision
has dropped the proposal for relocation of the Dispensary.
14. Though the petitioner has relied on the judgment of
this Court in Valanchery Grama Panchayat v. State of
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
Kerala and another [2010 (1) KHC 875) for impugning
the decision dropping the proposal for relocating the
Dispensary, I am of the view that no interference is
necessary in the matter under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The Panchayat has taken the decision
to drop the earlier proposal for relocation, taking note of
the objections raised by the citizens and taking into
consideration the larger public interest. The whole purpose
of democratically elected Government at the grass root
level itself is an indication to the legislative policy of
enabling decision making on the basis of ground realities,
as held by this Court in Mohamedali K. v. State of
Kerala [2023 KHC OnLine 9287].
In the circumstances, W.P.(C)No.18477 of 2025 and
W.P.(C)No.29164 of 2025 are dismissed. W.P.(C)No.17119
of 2025 is also dismissed as infructuous as the Panchayat
has already taken a decision not to relocate the
Homeopathy Dispensary".
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.
2311 of 2025 and W.A.No.2353 of 2025, the learned counsel for
the appellants in W.A.No.2332 of 2025, the learned counsel for
respondents 1 and 2 in W.A.No.2353 of 2025, the learned counsel
for the Vengola Grama Panchayat, the learned Government
Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the National Ayush
Mission.
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
Section 161(7) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, read with
Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat
Meeting) Rules, 1995, prohibits cancellation of a resolution
passed by the Panchayat after a period of three months from the
date of passing thereof. Similarly, the said provision prevents
even the cancellation of the resolution within the aforesaid period
of three months only by a 2/3rd majority of the whole number of
members of such Panchayat. Since Ext.P9 decision was one taken
on 15.02.2025, deciding to cancel the earlier decision which was
unanimously taken on 15.03.2023, after the aforesaid period; it
has no statutory backing and is null and void and hence liable to
be set aside. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in Valanchery Grama
Panchayat v. State of Kerala and another [2010 (1) KHC
875] in support of his aforesaid contentions.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
appellant in W.A.No.2332 of 2025 and other contesting
respondents would submit that Section 161(7) of Kerala
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
(Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995, prohibits
cancellation of earlier resolution of the Panchayat without 2/3 rd
majority of the members if such a decision was taken within three
months. If the decision is taken after three months, there is no
such restriction. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in Thrissur Municipal Corporation
v. E G Jecco @ Jecco George and others [2018 (5) KHC 114]
in the case of Rule 13 of the Kerala Municipality (Procedure for
Meeting) Rules, 1995 which according to them is in pari materia
with that of Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for
Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995, in support of their contentions.
The learned counsel further relied on a judgment of the learned
Single Judge of this Court in Mohamedali K. v. State of Kerala
[2023 KHC Online 9287 : 2023 KER 63787], which was one
rendered based on Section 161(7) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Vengola Grama
Panchayat would submit that the Panchayat has every right to
change its earlier decisions if found as prejudicial to the interests
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
of the people of the Panchayat. An aggrieved person can approach
the civil court if he is aggrieved by the decision of the Panchayat
on factual grounds.
7. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the
work for the construction of the Government Homeo Dispensary
in the Panchayat has been approved in the State Annual Action
Plan of the National Ayush Mission Kerala for the year 2024-2025,
and as per Ext.P6, a sum of Rs.30/- lakhs was set apart for the
said project. The Panchayat committee meeting held on
15.02.2025 took a decision to cancel the previous decision of the
Panchayat to shift the Homeo Dispensary.
8. The learned Standing Counsel for the National Ayush
Mission submitted that the said respondent has a neutral stand in
the matter of shifting of the Homeo Dispensary.
9. Admittedly, the property having an extent of 6 cents
was gifted by the appellant to Vengola Grama Panchayat by Ext.P4
gift deed dated 23.11.2023 for shifting of a Homeo Dispensary
functioning in Ward No.2 of the said Panchayat in a rented building
to the property gifted by the appellant by constructing a new
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
building. The panchayat committee, in its meeting held on
15.03.2023, unanimously decided to shift the Homeo Dispensary
to the property gifted by the appellant by Ext.P4 gift deed.
However, later, some persons filed complaints against the said
shifting and accordingly the Panchayat committee meeting held on
15.02.2025, took Ext.P9 decision by majority to cancel the
decision dated 15.03.2023. The appellant is challenging Ext.P9
mainly on the ground that such a decision cannot be taken by the
panchayat in view of Section 161(7) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
Act,1994 and Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for
Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995.
10. Section 161(7) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994,
reads thus:
"(7) No resolution of a Panchayat shall be modified, varied
or cancelled by that Panchayat within a period of three
months from the date of passing thereof, except by a
resolution supported by two-thirds of the whole number of
members of such Panchayat."
11. Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for
Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995 reads thus:
"11. Cancellation or modification of resolutions. - No
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
resolution of a Panchayat shall be modified or cancelled
except through a resolution passed in a meeting specially
convened for the purpose within three months of passing
such resolution, by a two third majority of the total number
of members of the Panchayat.
Provided that when the Panchayat is satisfied that a decision
or resolution passed by the Panchayat has not been passed
in accordance with law or it has been passed in violation of
any of the powers conferred on the Panchayat by the Act or
abuse thereof or that, if implemented, it may endanger
human life, health or public safety, the Panchayat may, at
any time With the approval of more than one half of the
total number of members of the panchayat, amend or
repeal such a decision or resolution".
12. Rule 13 of the Kerala Municipality (Procedure for
Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995, reads thus:
"13. Cancellation or modification of resolution-- No
resolution of a Council shall be modified or cancelled except
through a resolution passed in a meeting of the Council
specially convened for the purpose within three months of
passing such resolution, by a support of not less than one
half of the sanctioned number of members."
13. In Thrissur Municipal Corporation [2018 (5) KHC
114] a Division Bench of this Court, by referring to Rule 13 of the
Kerala Municipality (Procedure for Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995,
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
held thus:
"7. The translated version of Rule 13, that was relied upon
by the learned Single Judge, reads as under:
"13. Cancellation or modification of resolution-- No
resolution of a Council shall be modified or
cancelled except through a resolution passed in a
meeting of the Council specially convened for the
purpose within three months of passing such
resolution, by a support of not less than one half
of the sanctioned number of members."
8. We cannot but notice the apparent error that occurred in
the English translation because, in the way that we read the
Rule in the Malayalam version, the Rule clearly suggests that
no resolution of a council shall be modified or cancelled
within three months of passing of such resolution, other
than through a resolution passed in a meeting of the council
specially convened for the purpose, by support of not less
than one half of the sanctioned number of the members. In
contrast, in the English version of the Rule, the phrase
"within three months of passing such resolution" appears to
have been juxtaposed at a wrong place, as a result of which,
the very meaning of the sentence used in the Malayalam
Version of R.13 of the 1995 Rules, was changed. When we
read the Rule as it appears in the Malayalam version of the
1995 Rules, it becomes apparent that the limitation imposed
under the Rule is only in respect of the exercise of the power
of cancellation or modification of a resolution by the
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
Municipal Council, when such a cancellation or modification
of an earlier resolution is proposed within the period of three
months from the passing of the original resolution. On the
other hand, the English version of the Rule would suggest
that a municipal council cannot cancel or modify an earlier
resolution passed by it unless it moves for the subsequent
resolution within a period of three months from the passing
of the original resolution. The English Version, if taken to be
the applicable Rule, would effectively denude the power of
a municipal council to modify or cancel its earlier resolution,
once the period of three months from the earlier resolution
expires. This, we find, could not have been the intention of
the legislature or the rule making authority for it would
effectively denude the Local Self Government Institution of
a power which must be seen as inherent in it being a
creature of the Constitution.
9. It would be apposite, at this stage, to remind ourselves
that the object of Part IX and IX-A of the Constitution was
to introduce Local Self Government systems at Grass root
level. The Amendments to the Constitution in 1992 sought
to strengthen the system of Local Self Government by giving
a uniform constitutional base so that these Institutions of
Local Self Government became vibrant units of
administration in the rural and municipal areas by
establishing strong, effective and democratic local
administration so that there can be rapid implementation of
development programmes. The Municipalities Act was
enacted by the State Legislature, in exercise of the powers
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
conferred under Art.243W of the Constitution, so as to
endow Municipalities with such powers and authority as may
be necessary to enable them to function as Institutions of
Self-Government. Viewed in this backdrop, the Rules framed
by State Government under the Municipalities Act cannot
have the effect of denuding the Municipalities of the very
power that was conferred on them for enabling them to
function as Institutions of Self-Government.
10. In its functioning, the Municipality acts through the
Municipal Council, and policy decisions are taken through
resolutions of the said Council. The power to modify or
cancel a resolution already passed by the Municipal Council
must be seen as inherent in such Council, and a Rule framed
by the State Government for giving effect to the objects of
the Municipalities Act cannot be seen as denuding the
Municipality of its inherent power to cancel or modify an
earlier decision taken by it. We are therefore of the view
that R.13 of the 1995 Rules can only be seen as one
intended to safeguard against any hasty or arbitrary
modification or cancellation of a resolution that is passed,
within a short duration of three months from the date of its
passing. The alternate interpretation of the Rule, which
suggests that a resolution of the Council cannot be modified
or cancelled after three months of its passing will run
counter to the object of the Municipalities Act as also Article
243W of the Constitution. Such an interpretation has
therefore to be eschewed". (underline supplied)
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
14. In Mohamedali. K. [2023 KHC Online 9287], a
learned Single Judge of this Court held thus:
"5. By Government Order dated 12.01.2011, sanction was
accorded to start 68 Homoeo dispensaries in various
Panchayats and Municipalities. Mambad in Malappuram was
one of the Panchayats identified for setting up the Homoeo
Dispensary. Though initially, on 31.07.2010, the Panchayat
Committee had passed a resolution to set up the Homoeo
Dispensary at Meppadam, by another resolution of
03.03.2011, the earlier resolution of the Panchayat was
cancelled and a fresh decision was taken to set up the
Dispensary at Kattumunda. By Ext.P6 Government Order
dated 07.01.2015, the subsequent resolution of the
Panchayat has been interfered with, alleging that it was
taken in violation of S.161(7) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
Act, 1994.
6. For the purpose of reference, S.161(7) is extracted
as below:
"161. Meetings of Panchayaths - (7): No resolution
of a Panchayath shall be modified, varied or
cancelled by that Panchayath within a period of 3
months from the date of passing thereof, except
by a resolution supported by two - thirds of the
whole number of members of such Panchayath".
7. A reading of the above - extracted provision clearly
indicates that the statute only provides that the resolution
of the Panchayat shall not be varied or cancelled within three
months, unless the resolution is supported by two - thirds
of the members of the Panchayat. It is not comprehensible
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
from the impugned order as to how the resolution of the
Panchayat on 03.03.2011 violates S.161(7). Admittedly the
earlier decision was taken on 31.07.2010, and the
subsequent decision was taken on 03.03.2011. The dates
indicate that the subsequent decision was not within three
months so as to attract S.161(7) of the Act. Therefore, the
first reason stated in Ext.P6 order of the Government is
incorrect and legally not tenable". (underline supplied)
15. The learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.2311
of 2025 and W.A.No.2353 of 2025, vehemently argued that Rule
11 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Procedure for Panchayath
Meeting) Rules, 1995 has a proviso, whereas Rule 13 of the Kerala
Municipality (Procedure for Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995 does
not have such a proviso. As per proviso to Rule 11 of the Kerala
Panchayath Raj (Procedure for Panchayath Meeting) Rules, 1995,
cancellation or modification of the resolution as provided in Rule
11 can be done only in the circumstances mentioned in that
proviso. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, the wordings
of Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Procedure for Panchayath
Meeting) Rules, 1995 and Rule 13 of the Kerala Municipality
(Procedure for Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995 are slightly
different and the Division Bench of this Court while passing the
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
judgment in Thrissur Municipal Corporation [2018 (5) KHC
114] did not consider these differences and hence the judgment
in Thrissur Municipal Corporation is not applicable to the facts
of the instant case.
16. At the first blush, though the argument of the learned
counsel appears as impressive, while going through the provisions
under Section 161(7) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994, Rule
11 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Procedure for Panchayat
Meeting) Rules, 1995 and also Rule 13 of the Kerala Municipality
(Procedure for Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995, we are of the
considered opinion that the proviso to Rule 11 of the Kerala
Panchayath Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995, is
applicable only to a case, where the decision to cancel the previous
resolution or modification is attempted to be taken within 3
months of passing such a resolution and not to a case wherein
such a decision has been taken after the aforesaid 3 months. The
proviso is added to the rule only to relax the stipulation in the
strength of majority needed to take such a decision within three
months in the circumstances mentioned in the proviso. The
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
wording in Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Procedure for
Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995 is plain and clear that the
restrictions therein are applicable only to cases where it is decided
to cancel or modify the earlier resolution within three months.
Therefore, the Court cannot read between the lines when the rule
itself is unambiguous.
17. It is true that in Valanchery Grama Panchayat
[2010 (1) KHC 875] a learned Single Judge of this Court held
that the panchayat can cancel its resolution within three months
of its passing and that too only if it has 2/3rd majority support and
once three month period has expired, it is not permissible for the
panchayat to cancel the resolution. But in view of the discussion
made above, it is only to be held that the appellant cannot rely on
the dictum in Valanchery Grama Panchayat [2010 (1) KHC
875] in support of his contention regarding the legality of Ext.P9
decision taken by the Panchayat.
18. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgment, whether to retain the Homeo Dispensary at
the existing location and whether it is to be shifted to another
WA Nos.2311, 2332 2025:KER:81769
and 2353 of 2025
place is a policy decision to be taken by the panchayat by taking
note of the best interests of the people of the panchayath. In the
instant case, the majority members of the Panchayat in Ext.P9
decision decided to cancel the previous decision taken to shift the
homeo Dispensary. The reasoning for further decision is clear from
Ext.P9 as well as from Ext.P6 document produced in W.P.(C)No.
17119 of 2025.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submission made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold that
the learned Single Judge erred in reaching to the right conclusion
while passing the impugned judgment. The reasoning of the
learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned is not perverse or
illegal, which warrants the interference of this Court by exercising
appellate jurisdiction under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court
Act, 1958. The appeals are therefore liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the writ appeals stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
