IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2260 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THRIKARIPUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP BY THE PRESIDENT P.O.THRIKARIPUR 671 310 KASARGOD DT. BY ADV. MR. A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE MR. T.PRAVEEN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE PLANNING OFFICER DISTRICT PLANNING COMMITTEE, KASARGOD DT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. MS. K.R. DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.2260 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge raised in the writ petition is against Ext.P8. 2. The petitioner is a Grama Panchayat. It is stated that by availing of a sum of Rs.1,77,091/-, which was received by way of subsidy from the Local self Government Department, the Panchayat distributed blankets and sticks to the old, who are below the poverty line and crossed 70 years of age. 3. According to the petitioner, such distribution was based on the approval of the District Planning Committee as per Ext.P2. However, objection was raised, and thereupon the petitioner Panchayat submitted Ext.P7 representation that is now rejected by Ext.P8. A reading of Ext.P8 shows that the reason for not ratifying the action of the Panchayat is that as per Ext.P6 guidelines, in terms of which alone the subsidy could have been distributed, what has been done by the petitioner Panchayat was unauthorised. When subsidy WP(C) No.2260/2010 is given to the Panchayat for distribution as per Ext.P6 guidelines, distribution can only be in compliance thereof and not in any manner otherwise. In this case, although, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Ext.P6 guidelines, he could not satisfy me that under the guidelines what they have done was a permissible activity. If that be the case, the steps taken for recovery of the amount allegedly distributed by the Panchayat from whoever is responsible, including the members, cannot be faulted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg