IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 23968 of 2010(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. SREEMATHI,W/O.LATE THANKACHAN,AGED 55, POKATHUMANNEL,AZHIKKAL PO, ALUMPEEDIKA. 2. VIJAYAMMA,W/O.NATARAJAN,AGED 43, KOMALATH, AZHIKKAL PO,ALUMPEEDIKA, AYIRAMTHENGU. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,DISASTER MANAGEMENT (TRP CELL)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ALAPPAD PANCHAYATH, ALAPPAD, KARUNAGAPPALLY, REP.BY IT'S SECRETARY. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY. R1,R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN, SMT.O.V.BINDU, SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.23968/2010 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF THE RATION CARD ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. P8: COPY OF THE LIST DTD. 29/04/2010. P9: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 23968 of 2010 U ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T What is sought for in the writ petition is a direction to the second respondent to extend the benefit of Tsunami Rehabilitation Project, special package for construction of houses, to the petitioners herein. According to the petitioners, they are fully eligible for the benefit of the said scheme. According to them, though they were included in the list of beneficiaries, the benefit has not been extended to them. It is also their case that similarly situated persons have been extended the benefit and that the petitioners have been discriminated in the matter. 2. These averments have been denied by the respondent Panchayat in its counter affidavit. It is the contention of the Panchayat that both the petitioners have never turned up before the Panchayat, producing documents substantiating their claim. It is also the case of the Panchayat W.P.(C) No.23968/10 : 2 : that the second petitioner has property in the neighbouring Panchayat and that, therefore, she is ineligible for the benefit claimed. 3. However, counsel for the petitioners reiterates their claim and offers to produce the documents substantiating their claim for the benefit of the package from the second respondent Panchayat itself. 4. It is seen that the documents which are required to be produced by a claimant are those enumerated in Ext.P8 produced by the petitioners along with the reply affidavit. Therefore, if the petitioners produce the documents, which substantiate their claim, there is no reason why the Panchayat shall not consider the matter for the extension of the benefit of the scheme. 5. In that view of the matter, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioners to produce the documents enumerated in Ext.P8 substantiating their claim, before the second respondent Panchayat, within ten days from today. It is W.P.(C) No.23968/10 : 3 : directed that, if the documents are so produced, the second respondent Panchayat will consider the claim and pass orders in the matter, at any rate, within three weeks thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge