Moidutty Master v. State of Kerala, Nellaya Grama Panchayath and Village Extension Officer

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2016-02-29
Court Decision / Holding: This writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Moidutty Master

Respondents

The State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The Nellaya Grama Panchayath, represented by its Secretary, Nellaya, Ottapalam, Palakkad District
The Village Extension Officer, Nellaya Grama Panchayath, Ottapalam, Palakkad District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. K. Ravi (Pariyarath)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. T. C. Suresh Menon
• Sri. P. S. Appu
• Government Pleader, Sri. Manzoor Ali

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Moidutty Master, is the ward member of Ward No. IV of Nellaya Grama Panchayat. He filed this writ petition under Article 226 challenging Ext. P3, a beneficiary list prepared for the 12th Five-Year Plan housing scheme for 2014-15. He contends that comprehensive government guidelines govern the preparation of ward-wise beneficiary lists, and Ext. P3/the list was prepared in deviation from those guidelines, thereby excluding his ward from the beneficiary selection and hindering its approval by the Grama Sabha. The respondent states that the Panchayat has no role in drafting the beneficiary list, which is prepared by a working group, with the Grama Sabha empowered to modify the list. The petitioner, who was accused of non-cooperation, allegedly refused to convene the Grama Sabha for listing beneficiaries. It is alleged that 39 families would receive new construction assistance and 98 families repair assistance, and that three new construction beneficiaries and eight for maintenance would be supported from Ward IV, despite the petitioner’s stance. The court ultimately analyzes whether it should interfere under Article 226 given an adequate statutory remedy exists, citing the principle of self-imposed limitations and the State of HP v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements. The court declines to exercise writ jurisdiction and dismisses the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaKerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Rule of self-imposed limitation on writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when an adequate alternative remedy exists
Adequacy of alternative remedy as a prerequisite to Article 226 jurisdiction

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P3 violates government guidelines for preparing ward-wise beneficiary lists under the 12th Five Year Plan housing scheme for 2014-15. He asserts that his Ward No. IV was excluded from approval by the Grama Sabha, pointing to procedural irregularities and non-compliance with guidelines, leading to potential miscarriage of justice. He seeks a quashment of Ext.P3 and compliance with the guidelines, arguing for participation and adherence to due process.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Panchayath has no role in preparing the beneficiary list; it is prepared by a working group and can only be modified by the Grama Sabha. The petitioner is accused of non-cooperation in convening the Grama Sabha to prepare the list. Despite opportunities, he did not participate. Funds have been set aside to assist eligible beneficiaries in Ward IV to guard against non-cooperation. They argue there was no procedural irregularity in preparing the list.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements and Others	2005(6) SCC 499	Positive	Used to articulate that Article 226 jurisdiction is subject to a self-imposed limitation when an adequate alternative remedy exists; the court applies this principle to deny interference.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** ## **MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/10TH PHALGUNA, 1937** **WP(C).NO. 8916 OF 2015 (L) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **--------------** **MOIDUTTY MASTER, AGED 62 YEARS, WARD NO.IV, NELLAYA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, S/O.KUNHEEDU, RESIDING AT MANISSERY KUNNATH (PO), IRUMBALASSERY NELLAYA, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 679335** **BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)** **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001** **2. THE NELLAYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NELLAYA, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 679333** **3. THE VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, NELLAYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 679333** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.APPU BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. MANZOOR ALI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).NO. 8916 OF 2015 (L)** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **========** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------** **EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE APPENDIX TO THE GO (MS) NO. 362/2013 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION DATED 16.11.2013 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY TEH PETITIONER FROM THE SECOND RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION, DATED 04.12.2014 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION DATED 11.03.2015** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **DST** ## **K. HARILAL, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No.8916 of 2015** **- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 29th day of February, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is the ward member of Ward No.IV of Nellaya Grama Panchayat. This writ petition is filed, seeking a direction to quash Ext.P3, which is the beneficiary list prepared for giving financial assistance, under the 12[th] Five Year plan for the construction/repair of houses for the financial year 2014-15. According to the petitioner, for preparing the beneficiary list of each Ward, comprehensive guidelines are issued by the Government. But, the petitioner being the member of a ward No.IV, made request to prepare the list in compliance with the guidelines formulated by the ## **W.P.(C) No. 8916 of 2015** ## **-: 2 :-** Government. The 2[nd] respondent did not prepare the beneficiary list, in adherence to the guidelines issued by the Government, and therefore, the same could not be placed for the Grama Sabha for approval. This is the case of all the Wards under the Nellaya Grama Panchayat. But, to the surprise of the petitioner, on 09.03.2015, the ordinary meeting of the Panchayat Committee decided to approve the beneficiary list of 18 Wards, excluding the petitioner's Ward. Thus, the entire process of the preparation of the beneficiary list is faulty, resulting miscarriage of justice. It is with this circumstance, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the prayers referred above. 2. The 2[nd] respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating that the Panchayath has no role to play in the preparation of beneficiary list, which is prepared by the working group. Only the grama sabha ## **W.P.(C) No. 8916 of 2015** ## **-: 3 :-** has the power to make any modification in the list prepared by the working group. The petitioner, who is the member of Ward No.IV was totally non-cooperative from the very beginning and refused to convene the grama sabha to prepare the list of beneficiaries. Despite repeated opportunities given to the petitioner, he refused to convene the grama sabha, so as to forward the list of beneficiaries. In accordance with the project, financial assistance is extended to 39 families, for construction of houses and for 98 families for repair works. When this is divided among 19 Wards, three beneficiaries for house construction and eight beneficiaries for repair and maintenance could get assistance. Since the petitioner has not co-operated with the preparation of beneficiary list, the Panchayath with abundant caution has kept apart the necessary funds, to give assistance to three beneficiaries for ## **W.P.(C) No. 8916 of 2015** **-: 4 :-** new construction and eight beneficiaries for maintenance work for the petitioner’s Ward. According to the Panchayath, the Panchayath has taken all precaution to ensure that eligible persons in Ward No.IV are not the sufferers due to the recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner. It is also submitted that there is no procedural irregularity, in preparing the list of beneficiaries. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. In view of the rival submissions, the short point that arises for consideration is, whether there is any reason or circumstance, warranting interference of this Court, invoking jurisdiction and power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Going by the impugned resolution, it is ## **W.P.(C) No. 8916 of 2015** ## **-: 5 :-** seen that the said resolution is passed in exercise of the jurisdiction and powers of the Panchayath, as provided under the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994. 6. The scope and power of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relating to the matter for which alternative remedy has been provided under the Statutes is a Rule of self imposed limitation. Normally, High Court should not interfere, if there is an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy is open to the petitioner. If somebody approaches the High Court, without availing alternative remedy, the High Court should ensure that he has made a strong case or there exists a good ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. This is the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in _**State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements and Others**_ [2005(6) SCC 499]. 7. I have examined the question in controversy ## **W.P.(C) No. 8916 of 2015** **-: 6 :-** involved in the light of the above decision. According to the petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent has not prepared the list of beneficiaries in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government. It is also averred that he is aggrieved by the beneficiary list of 18 Wards prepared improperly and now stands approved in haste excluding the petitioner’s ward. The respondent contended that the petitioner, who is a member of Ward No.IV was totally non-co-operative from the very beginning and he refused to convene the grama sabha to prepare list of beneficiaries and despite the repeated opportunities, given to the petitioner, he refused to convene the grama sabha so as to forward list of beneficiaries. Even though, the petitioner has not co-operated with the preparation of beneficiaries list of his Ward, the 2[nd] respondent has kept apart necessary funds to give assistance to the beneficiaries for new construction ## **W.P.(C) No. 8916 of 2015** ## **-: 7 :-** and 8 beneficiaries for maintenance work. Thus, the Panchayath has taken all precautions to ensure that eligible persons in Ward No.IV are not the sufferers due to the recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner. 8. The point that who was at fault, in not preparing the beneficiaries list of the petitioner’s Ward, is a disputed fact which cannot be decided in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellate remedy is more wider than the writ jurisdiction. I do not find any circumstance, warranting interference of this Court with respect to the decision taken by the Panchayath in exercise of the statutory power in a democratic process. Certainly, if the petitioner was aggrieved, he could have resorted to the statutory remedies also. 9. However, the 2[nd] respondent submitted that even though, the petitioner has not co-operated with ## **W.P.(C) No. 8916 of 2015** ## **-: 8 :-** the preparation of the beneficiary list, the 2[nd] respondent kept apart necessary funds to give assistance to beneficiaries of the petitioner’s Ward also. In the above circumstances, there is no circumstance, warranting interference of this Court and this Court declines jurisdiction. This writ petition is dismissed accordingly. DST Sd/- **K. HARILAL,** //True copy// P.A. To Judge **JUDGE**