IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31267 of 2009 (S) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- N.S.VARGHESE, S/O.SCARIA, AGED 60 YEARS, NEDUMATTATHIL HOUSE, P.O.ATTOOR, MULLOOR KARA PANCHAYATH, THALAPPALLY, THRISSUR-68. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. MULLORKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MULLORKARA.P.O, MULLORKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, MULLORKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULLORKARA.P.O, MULLORKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN FOR R1 & 2 SMT.P.G.BABITHA FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31267 of 2009 (S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True photocopy of the trees which are standing at the premises of the Panchayat. Ext.P2: True photocopy of the notice dated 23-10-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent and English translation. Ext.P3: True photocopy of the representations submitted by the petitioner before the Chief Minister of Kerala and English translation. Ext.P4: True copy of the representations submitted by the petitioner before the Chief Secretary of the State and English translation. Ext.P5: True photocopy of the representations submitted by the petitioner before the concerned Minister of the Local Self Government and English translation. Ext.P6: True copy of the representations submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent Panchayat and English translation. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: Ext.R1(a): True copy of the request sent by the Head Mistresses, Government U.P.School, Attoor. Ext.R1(b): True copy of the complaint 15-7-2007 regarding an old teak tree from the Medical Officer, (Ayurveda) of the Government Ayurveda Dispensary at irunilamkode. Ext.R1(c): True copy of the complaint sent by the Secretary of Anuboothi CDS Kudumbasree Unit. Ext.R1(d): True copy of the complaint sent by the Village Officer, Mulloorkara Group. Ext.R1(e): True copy of the decision dated 16-4-2007 of the Panchayat. Ext.R1(f): True copy of the letter dated 19-7-2007 sent by the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry, Thrissur. Ext.R1(g): True copy of the permission of the Conservator of Forests vide letter dated 24-5-2008. Ext.R1(h): True copy of the decision of the Panchayat dated 27-7-2007. Ext.R1(i): True copy of the decision of the Panchayat dated 19-6-2008. Ext.R1(j): True copy of the decision of the Panchayat dated 24-6-2009. Ext.R1(k): True copy of the decision of the Panchayat dated 19-6-2008. // True copy // P.A. to Judge S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.31267 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of December 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.BASHEER, J. Petitioner, who claims to be a social worker and public spirited person, has filed this writ petition professedly in public interest praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction to the respondent/Panchayat not to cut and remove any trees standing in its office premises or in the premises of other buildings under its control without any “valid reason and permission” from the competent authorities. Petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 auction notice published by the Panchayat proposing to cut and remove 14 trees indicated therein. 2. The grievance of the petitioner, who is a former President of the very same Grama Panchayat, is that the proposal to cut and remove these 14 valuable trees is totally unwarranted. He alleges that the said attempt is without any authority or sanction of law. He further contends that there is absolutely no chance for any danger to the life or property of the public necessitating such an unwarranted action. 3. When this writ petition came up for admission on November 5, 2009 we ordered notice to the respondents and directed that all further steps pursuant to Ext.P2 auction notice be kept in abeyance. W.P.(C)No.31267 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though auction was held pursuant to Ext.P2 notice, the trees have not been allowed to be cut by the auction purchaser. In fact only 6 out of the 14 trees mentioned in Ext.P2 notification were sold in the public auction. Other trees were not sold, since the money offered was not adequate. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is asserted that the decision to cut and remove these 14 trees was taken by the Panchayat way back in the year 2007 itself after considering the request received from various quarters like Head Mistress of the nearby school, Village Officer, District Medical Officer of Ayurveda Hospital etc. Learned counsel has also made available the relevant file containing the various resolutions passed by the Panchayat from time to time regarding this issue. The communications/permission received from the Assistant Conservator of Forest allowing the Panchayat to cut and remove the trees in question are also available in the file. 6. However, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire action smacks of malafides. He contends that even assuming such requests were received from various persons/authorities, the panchayat is not justified in proceeding to cut and remove those trees. 7. We are unable to understand the rationale behind the above contention. It has to be remembered that the decision to cut and remove these trees, which according to the Panchayat are in a dangerous W.P.(C)No.31267 OF 2009 :: 3 :: condition, has been taken by the body comprising of elected representatives. It is a Local Self Government institution. The decisions taken by such bodies are covered by statutes. Such institutions work within the four corners of the relevant statute as envisaged under the Constitution itself. In that view of the matter, we are not in a position to accept the contention raised by the petitioner that the action of the Panchayat smacks of malafides or irrationality. The Panchayat, in our view, is well within its powers to take a decision in such matters. Even otherwise, on the face of the materials available on record, we are totally satisfied that the decision of the Panchayat is valid. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the Assistant Conservator of Forest has already given permission to cut and remove the enumerated trees. In that view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with cost which is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. This shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondents within four weeks from today. (S.R.BANNURMATH) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes