High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-01-09Writ petition disposed

Lazer Stanley v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 20859 of 2013 (F)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Surendra Mohan
Judgment Date: 2014-01-09
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed with directions: Respondents 4 and 5 are to take steps to implement the Model Anganwadi at the identified 10-cent plot adjacent to Cheranellore Village Office, within three months, and to obtain required sanctions from the Government and other authorities to ensure funds do not lapse; no relief was granted to quash Ext. P8.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

LAZER STANLEY, President of Residents' Apex Council (RACE), Ward No.9, Cheranellur Grama Panchayat

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Revenue (U) Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram
Additional Secretary, Social Justice (B) Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram
Additional Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), Edappally, Kalamassery
Cheranellur Grama Panchayath, Cheranellur, Kochi-27 represented by its Secretary
President, Cheranellur Grama Panchayath, Cheranellur, Kochi-27

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.S. Madhusoodanan
• Thomas Chazhukkaran
• M.M. Vinod Kumar
• P.K. Rakesh Kumar
• K.S. Mizver

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. G. Gopakumar (Government Pleader)
• Sri. T.K. Ajithkumar (Valath)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Lazer Stanley, claiming the position of President of Residents' Apex Council (RACE) for Cheranellur Ward No.9, filed a writ petition challenging the Cheranellur Grama Panchayat’s move to relocate a Government Model Anganwadi from its identified land to a nearby 10-cent plot. The project, funded with 23.75 lakh rupees, identified land of 11.197 cents, lease granted by the Government, and development plans approved (Exts. P1–P5, P4) with TK ITCO entrusted construction and KCZMA clearance, was poised for timely implementation. The petitioner sought to quash the Panchayat’s Ext. P8 resolution that shifted the location, and to mandamus the authorities to proceed with construction in accordance with Exts. P2, P3, P5 and Ext. P4. The respondents 4 and 5 contended that the river-adjacent plot was unsafe for children; the Child Welfare Officer’s report (Exhibit P7) supported relocation; the alternative plot’s L-shape and proximity issues were noted by the Local Self Government Department’s Assistant Engineer (R4(a)). It was argued that safety considerations and practical constraints warranted relocation, with safeguards to be implemented. While the court declined to quash the resolution, it emphasized expeditious implementation and directed respondents 4 and 5 to complete the project at the 10-cent plot near the Village Office within three months, ensuring government sanctions and allocation of funds to prevent lapse.

Provisions of Law Cited

Right to Information Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that the Panchayat had no authority to alter the approved location of the Model Anganwadi. Relying on the earlier W.P.(C) No.13096/12 (Exhibit P13), it contends that the land identified for the Anganwadi, lease in place and KCZMA clearance, coupled with the funding and KITCO’s assignment for construction, must proceed as per the approved plan (Exts. P2, P3, P4, P5) and that the Panchayat cannot relocate the project without justification. The relief sought includes quashing Ext P8 and mandamus to proceed with construction on the original site.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue safety concerns necessitate relocation. The river-adjacent plot is deemed unsafe for балалар, despite safeguards; the P7 Child Welfare Officer’s report supports identifying an alternative plot. The assistant engineer’s R4(a) report indicates Plan P4 cannot be constructed on the original plot. They contend relocation is necessary, not a bid to torpedo the project, and urge expeditious implementation on the 10-cent plot with required government sanctions to prevent lapse of funds.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
W.P.(C) No.13096/12	W.P.(C) No.13096/12	Mentioned Only	The earlier judgment is cited as background to show prior disposition on similar issues, but not treated as binding precedent in the present decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Lazer Stanley v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/19TH POUSHA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 20859 of 2013 (F)** ## **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **LAZER STANLEY AGED 63 YEARS S/O.DEVASSY, KOLPURATH HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O. CHERANELLOOR, COCHIN-27.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (U) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAURAM.** ## **2. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY** **SOCIAL JUSTICE (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. ADDITIONAL CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (ICDS) EDAPPALLY, KALAMASSERY.** ## **4. CHERANELLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH** **CHERANELLUR, COCHIN-27, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** ## **5. PRESIDENT** **CHERANELLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATHCHERANELLUR, COCHIN-27.** **R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) R1 - R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **----------------------------** ## **WP(C).No. 20859 of 2013 (F)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** - **EXHIBIT P1. PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.V(3) DATED 31/1/2012.** - **EXHIBIT P2. PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.G.O.(MS) NO.470/2012/REVENUE DATED 10/12/2012.** - **EXHIBIT P3. PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.G.O.(MS) NO.39/2013/JSD DATED 7/2/2013.** - **EXHIBIT P4. PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAN PREPARED BY KITCO** - **EXHIBIT P5. PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.470/A2/13/KCZMA/S & TD DATED 29/5/2013.** - **EXHIBIT P6. PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADDL.COUNTER AFFIDVIT FILED BY 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 9/7/2012.** - **EXHIBIT P7. PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 3/6/2013.** - **EXHIBIT P8. PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1 OF 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29/6/2013.** - **EXHIBIT P9. PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17/8/2013 UNDER RI ACT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P10. PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF BASIC TAX REGISTER.** - **EXHIBIT P11. PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER OF 5TH RESPONDENT TO ADVOCATE.** - **EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.BB5/10274/2013/CE/LSGD DATED 28.09.2013** - **EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.13096/12 DATED 1.8.2013** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** ## **EXHIBIT R4(A) COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30.10.2013 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT ENGINEER LSG DEPARTMENT** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **JJJ** ## **K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. --------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.20859 of 2013-F ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of January, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner claims to be the President of Residents' Apex Council, (RACE), Chittoor Zone, Ernakulam and a resident of Ward No.9 of Cheranellur Grama Panchayat has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- - i. Call for records connecting Exts.P-1 to P-5 to and P-7 to P-11 from the respondent concerned; - ii. Call for P-8 from the 4[th] respondent and Issue Writ of Certiorari to quash the same - iii. Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to proceed with construction of model anganwadi permitted under Exts.P-2, P-3 and P-5 as per Ext.P4 approved plan within a time frame; - iv. Such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper; A N D - v. Award cost to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, the Government had introduced the Model Anganwadi Project in various Panchayats. Accordingly, the Cheranellur Panchayt was ## -:2:- ## W.P.(C) No.20859 of 2013-F allotted a Model Anganwadi. The same was proposed to be located in Ward No.9 of Cheranellur Panchayat. An extent of 11.197 cents of land was identified for the purpose of constructing the Anganwadi. An amount of 23.75 lakhs was sanctioned for the project. The Panchayat by Exhibit P1, resolved to approach the Government seeking assignment of the required land. By Exhibit P2, the Government granted a lease of the land. It was decided to entrust the construction to M/s KITCO Ltd. Exhibit P4 plan was prepared. Exhibit P5 permission from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority was obtained. Therefore, all the necessary steps for commencing and completing the construction have been taken. 3. In the above circumstances, according to the petitioner, attempts are being made to shift the Anganwadi to another plot of land having 10cents in extent. It is alleged that the present move is only to torpedo the project itself and to see that the same does not fructify. Therefore, the ## -:3:- ## W.P.(C) No.20859 of 2013-F petitioner has sought for the issue of appropriate orders quashing the resolution adopted by the Panchayat for the above purpose. Exhibit P8 is the resolution by which the said decision has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the said resolution is liable to be quashed. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 and 5. According to the said respondents, the plot that was identified initially was by the side of a river. Since the Anganwadi was not located at a safe place, it was felt that the same had to be shifted to some other place. It was noticed that, the Anganwadi had to cater to the needs of small children. The location of the plot was at a remote area which was not easily accessible to the small children. The same was also located by the side of the river, which was not safe. Therefore, it was decided to identify some other plot of land. The matter was considered on the basis of Exhibit P7 report submitted by the Child Welfare Officer. It was also found that, the plot that was located was not having sufficient area ## -:4:- ## W.P.(C) No.20859 of 2013-F to accommodate the building that has to be constructed on the basis of Exhibit P4 plan and the measurements contained therein. The Government had directed the plan to be implemented as such without any alteration. It was in view of the above circumstances that Exhibit P8 resolution was adopted. 5. Advocate K.S.Madhusoodanam appears for the petitioner. According to the counsel, the construction of the Model Anganwadi had been the subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No.13096 of 2012. As per Exhibit P13 judgment, the said writ petition was disposed of declining relief to the petitioner therein. The present writ petitioner had got himself impleaded in the said writ petition and had contested the claim of the persons who had filed the writ petition. In view of Exhibit P13 judgment, it is contended that the Panchayat has no authority to change the location of the Anganwadi. According to the counsel, the land that has been identified has already been obtained on lease by the ## -:5:- ## W.P.(C) No.20859 of 2013-F Panchayat. Clearance from the Coastal Zone management Authority has also been obtained. Necessary funds have also been sanctioned. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for not proceedings with the project and implementing the same. 6. Advocate T.K.Ajith Kumar who appears for respondents 4 and 5 on the other hand points out that it was on the basis of Exhibit P7 report of the Child Welfare Officer that the matter was reconsidered. Location of the Anganwadi at the present plot of land was dangerous to the children because of its proximity to the river. The said defect had been noticed earlier, but the plot had been approved only because no alternative land was available. It had also been decided that sufficient safeguards like the construction of a compound wall of sufficient height and filling up and fencing of the river bank etc. were to be undertaken for the safety of the children who are expected to attend the Anganwadi. It was thereupon that by Exhibit R4(a), the Assistant Engineer ## -:6:- ## W.P.(C) No.20859 of 2013-F of the Local Self Government Department had reported that, Exhibit P4 plan with its present measurements could not be constructed in the plot of land that has been identified. It was in the said circumstances that an alternative plot was located. According to the counsel, the Panchayat is also proceeding in all earnestness to implement the project, without delay. 7. Heard. Exhibit R4(a) shows that the Assistant Engineer of the Local Self Government Department had reported that it was not possible to construct the Anganwadi building with the measurements stipulated by Exhibit P4 in the present plot that has been identified. It is stated that the present plot is ‘L’ shaped. The close proximity of the plot to the river makes it unsafe for children who are to attend the Anganwadi. Though sufficient safeguards would be able to eliminate the risk factor to a certain extent, it can never be fool proof. Therefore, considering the safety of the children who are to attend the Anganwadi, it has only been ## -:7:- ## W.P.(C) No.20859 of 2013-F appropriate that the Panchayat has decided to shift the Anganwadi to a more centralized location. The present location is part of the compound of the Village Office and is stated to be centrally located and easily accessible to all. The counsel submits that correspondence seeking permission to construct the Model Anganwadi at the said place is in progress. Exhibit P8 is the resolution of the Panchayat by which a decision to shift the Anganwadi has been adopted. No material or evidence has been placed before me to justify a conclusion that the present attempt of the Panchayat is to torpedo the entire project. However, it is necessary to ensure that steps are taken expeditiously to implement the project, in the absence of which, the funds allotted are likely to get lapsed. 8. In view of the above, while declining relief to the petitioner this writ petition is disposed with the following direction:- Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to take necessary ## -:8:- W.P.(C) No.20859 of 2013-F steps to implement the project of the Model Anganwadi at the plot of land that has been identified, the 10 cents of land adjacent to the Cheranellore Village Office which is stated to be belonging to the Panchayat. Respondents 4 and 5 shall also take necessary steps for getting the sanction from the Government and other concerned authorities and to ensure that the project is implemented without the funds allotted getting lapsed, within a period of three months. Sd/- **K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE** kkj