K.V. RANJAN v. THE SECRETARY, VYPPIN BLOCK PANCHAYAT; THE SECRETARY, NJARACKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT; THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS`** ``` MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 14862 OF 2014 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` K.V.RANJAN CONVENER, JRY MOONAMDHARA, KANNAPPASSERRY HOUSE, NJARACKAL POST, ERNAKULAM BY ADVS. C.S.RAMANATHAN K.M.MADHU VISHNUJA AJAYAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** |**`1`**|**`THE SECRETARY`**| |---|---| ||**`VYPPIN BLOCK PANCHAYAT,`**| ||**`VYPPIN AYYAMPALLY POST,`**| ||**`ERNAKULAM 682 505.`**| |**`2`**|**`THE SECRETARY`**| ||**`NJARACKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,`**| ||**`NJARACKAL, ERNALULAM 682 505.`**| |**`3`**|**`THE SECRETARY`**| ||**`MINISTRY OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,`**| ||**`SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695 001.`**| ||**`BY ADVS.`**| ||**`SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR`**| ||**`SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN`**| ||**`SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH`**| ||**`SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SR.`**| ||**`SMT.VANDANA MENON`**| ||**`SMT.AMMINIKUTTY K., SR.GP`**| ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP© 14862/2014 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ......…............................................. W.P.(C).No.14862 of 2014 …................................................ Dated this the 6[th] day of November, 2023 ## JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks for a direction to quash Ext.P16 and Ext.P17 orders issued by the 2[nd] respondent. 2. Under the Jawahar Rosgar Yogana Scheme, the second respondent decided to remove hanging latrines from the thodu running through wards VII, VIII and IX of Njarackal Grama Panchayat. To implement the scheme effectively, nine members were selected of which, petitioner was elected as the ‘Convenor’. The Village Extension Officer was directed to survey the thodu and submit a report showing the number of hanging latrines. It was found that some of the persons were using hanging latrines while the others had only pipes projecting into the thodu. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P2 report of the Village Extension Officer, 38 persons were found to have been using hanging latrines, which were to be ``` WP© 14862/2014 ``` ``` 3 ``` removed and new latrines constructed in its place. 3. Pursuant to the said report, an agreement was entered into between the 2[nd] respondent and the writ petitioner to remove the hanging latrines, and also for widening and deepening the thodu, which is about 1½ k.m. long, running through the three wards of the 2[nd] respondent Grama Panchayat. On 23.01.2002, a mobilization advance of Rs.1,00,000/- was sanctioned to the petitioner, which was released by voucher dated 31.01.2002. Petitioner alleges that after completion of the work of removing and constructing 58 latrines, the Panchayat refused to disburse the entire amount due to the petitioner and has, in the meantime, initiated revenue recovery proceedings to recover the amount handed over as a mobilization advance. It is at this juncture that petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.23470/2007. By judgment dated 17.12.2013, this Court directed the Secretary to take a decision and gave liberty to the petitioner to produce all documents in support of his case. However, by Ext.P16 order dated 10.03.2014, the second respondent declined to allow the claim of the petitioner in its ``` WP© 14862/2014 ``` ``` 4 ``` entirety and allowed only an amount equivalent for constructing 38 latrines. By Ext.P17, the Panchayat initiated revenue recovery proceedings to recover the excess amount disbursed to the petitioner for the work done by him. 4. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 separately. Paragraphs, 6 to 9 of the counter affidavit of 2[nd] respondent is relevant and is extracted below: “6.It is submitted that petitioner submitted a representation on 05/07/2007 by which it is claimed that Rs.66,000/- was disbursed to the beneficiaries for constructing 33 hanging latrines. Besides that, Rs.44,000/- was given to 22 beneficiaries and altogether Rs.1,10,000/- was spent by him. The petitioner agreed to return the balance amount of Rs.54,000/- which is the amount remaining from the advance amount. 7.It is submitted that along with the representation the petitioner enclosed a list of 55 beneficiaries to prove that he has completed the work of 55 hanging latrines. Based on the same the panchayat directed the Village Extension Officer to submit a report and it was informed ``` WP© 14862/2014 ``` ``` 5 ``` that petitioner has constructed only 37 hanging latrines over and above the 22 hanging latrines constructed earlier. 8.It is submitted that in the original estimate only Rs.76,000/- was earmarked for constructing 38 hanging latrines. Since the said estimate was not revised by enhancing the number of hanging latrines, panchayat was not in a position to accept the report of the Village Extension Officer. Apart from that there is no evidence to show that petitioner has done any Civil Work as agreed with the panchayat. Hence panchayat decided to disburse a further amount of Rs.32,000/- to the petitioner which is the value of 16 hanging latrines. It is on the aforesaid background that the claim of the petitioner was rejected and a request was made to the District Collector to recover the amount due from the petitioner by initiating revenue recovery proceedings. 9.It is submitted that the attempt of the petitioner is to catch fish out of the troubled waters. In fact he has not done the work as agreed and created a false list for getting the full amount from the panchayat. Panchayat ``` WP© 14862/2014 ``` ``` 6 ``` is able to disburse the amount only when there is concrete evidence with regard to performance of work by the petitioner as agreed. It is pertinent to note that even in his representation dated 5/02/2007, there is no mention with regard to the performance of civil work. Ext.P16 order of the panchayat was purely legal and same was passed after due deliberations and discussions. Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands and is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for.” 5. I have heard Sri.C.S.Ramanathan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Pushparajan Kodoth, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Sri.S.Shanavas Khan, the learned Standing for the 2[nd] respondent. 6. The second respondent declined to allow the entire claim of the petitioner for alleged construction of latrines and removal of existing latrines from the thodu. When petitioner claimed that he had constructed 58 latrines after removing them, the Panchayat Secretary came to the conclusion that only 38 ``` WP© 14862/2014 ``` ``` 7 ``` latrines have been removed and constructed, as is evident from Ext.P16 order. Respondents thus denied the claim of the petitioner that he carried out the work in its entirety. Though petitioner relies on Ext.P13 report of the Village Extension Officer, where the names of 58 persons for whom latrines have been allegedly constructed after removing the old ones are mentioned, panchayat in its counter affidavit stated that the said report had not been accepted, and therefore, it cannot be relied upon. 7. It is also noticed in the impugned order that the Panchayat Secretary has dealt with Ext.P13 report of the Village Extension Officer and found that the petitioner had not carried out any civil work towards the project and is only entitled for removal of 38 latrines @ Rs2,000/- per latrine. It was categorically found that the petitioner had not carried out any civil work. 8. It is evident on a perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition, that the amounts claimed by the petitioner remain disputed, and the report of the Village Extension Officer has not been accepted by the Panchayat. Since the amounts claimed by the ``` WP© 14862/2014 ``` ``` 8 ``` petitioner remain disputed, it is a matter which requires adjudication on those disputed facts. Therefore, this Court cannot, at this juncture, interfere with Ext.P16. 9. Having regard to the disputed questions of facts involved, I am of the view that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in Shriram Engineering Construction Co.Ltd. v. K.S.I.D.C. 2007 (2) KLT 388, I find that the said case is distinguishable as there is a disputed question of fact involved in the present case. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/08/11/2023 ``` WP© 14862/2014 ``` ``` 9 ``` ||**`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14862/2014`**|| |---|---|---| |**`PETITIONER`**|**`EXHIBITS`**|| |**`EXHIBIT P1`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED`**|**`27-12-`**| ||**`1999 TAKEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDNET`**|| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED NIL`**|**`SUBMITTED`**| ||**`BY THE VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER`**|| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED`**|**`23-01-`**| ||**`2002 BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE`**|| ||**`PETITIONER`**|| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY`**|**`AGREEMENT`**| ||**`DATED 23-01-2002 BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT`**|| ||**`AND THE PETITIONER`**|| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER DATED`**|**`31-01-`**| ||**`2002`**|| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED`**|**`17-06-`**| ||**`2002 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`**|| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED`**|**`06-`**| ||**`03-2003`**|| |**`EXHIBIT P8`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER DATED`**|**`05-05-`**| ||**`2003 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF `**|**`THE 2ND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT`**|| |**`EXHIBIT P9`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED`**|**`11-01-`**| ||**`2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`**|| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED`**|**`15-03-`**| ||**`2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`**|| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING`**|| ||**`DATED 20-01-2005`**|| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER`**|**`DATED 27-`**| ||**`07-2007`**|| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED NIL OF THE`**|| ||**`VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER`**|| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`**|**`17-`**| ||**`12-2013 IN WPC NO 23470/2007 `**|**`OF THIS`**| ||**`HON'BLE COURT`**|| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION`**|**`DATED 10-`**| ||**`03-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE`**|| ||**`2ND RESPONDENT`**|| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-03-2014 OF`**|| ||**`THE 2ND RESPONDENT`**|| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED`**|**`15-03-`**| ||**`2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH`**|| |||**`TRUE COPY`**|