IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1593 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.H.SIRAJ, VATTAKAYAM HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE ERATTUPETTA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 1593 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February , 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who claims to be an elected President of a beneficiary committee, which has been constituted for the implementation of Kattamala - Sasthamkunnu J.J.P. within the area of the respondent Panchayat, has filed this Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of the Panchayat to hand over the key and equipments of the Kattamala – Sasthamkunnu J.J.P. to the society registered as per Ext.P4 immediately. According to the petitioner, Kattamala – Sasthamkunnu J.J.P. was being administered by a beneficiary committee of the Block Panchayat and since the working of that Committee was not proper, the President of the Panchayat convened a meeting as per Ext.P1 and in that meeting new beneficiary committee was constituted as per Ext.P2, of which the petitioner was elected as the President and one Sri.Rafiq was elected as Secretary. The case is that the new beneficiary committee met and it was resolved as per Ext.P3 that the Committee will be registered as a Society under T.C. Act 12 of 1955 and pursuant to that decision, WPC No.1593/2008 2 Society has been registered and Ext.P4 registration certificate and memorandum of association are relied on. The petitioner submits that the Secretary of the Panchayat was requested by Exts.P5 and P6 to handover the machinery and equipment relating to the water supply scheme to the Society. But, the respondent Panchayat has not chosen to do so and hence this writ petition. 2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is pointed out that a person by name C.A.Pareed, President of Kattamala Jalasejana Padhadhi has approached this Hon' Court in respect of the same issue by filing W.P.(C) No.1780/2006. In that Writ Petition, this court directed the Government to take a decision in the matter and accordingly the Government issued Ext.R1 order. In Ext. R1, the Government decided to entrust the working of the scheme to the previous beneficiary committee itself and the Government has also observed that if the beneficiaries come to lose their faith in the previous committee, it is open to them to take proper legal action. According to the counter affidavit, the previous committee was entrusted with the working of the scheme pursuant to Ext.R1 and scheme is now working very smoothly. Along with this counter affidavit, the respondent panchayat also produced Ext.R1(a) to show that pursuant to Ext.R1 working of the scheme has now been taken WPC No.1593/2008 3 over by Kattamala Janakeeya Jalasejana Padhadhi vide register No.K20/2006. 3. Heard Sri.Georgekutty Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner and those of the learned Standing Cousnel Sri.V.K.Mohammed Yousuf the learned counsel for the Panchayat. Sri.Georgekutty submitted that the petitioner cannot be accused of having suppressed any material facts. The Government in Ext.R1 order stated that if anybody is having complaint regarding the working of the scheme by the old committee after they had been re-entrusted with the same, appropriate action will be taken by the President of the Panchayat in the wake of complaint that the old committee is not implementing the scheme at all. In this case action was taken and as per Ext.P2, a new committee was selected in the meeting which was held pursuant to Ext.P1. President of the Panchayat is a signatory to Ext.P2 and she cannot be heard to say that committee had not been elected and the petitioner is not the president of that committee. 4. Sri.V.K.Mohammed Yousef submits that there is nothing to indicate that the President of the Panchayat had information that Ext.P3 resolution was passed and Ext.P3 was unauthorized. The meeting which was called by the President as per Ext.P1 was a meeting only to discuss about the manner in which the scheme could WPC No.1593/2008 4 be effectively implemented. Constitution of a new Society pursuant to Ext.P3 is unauthorized. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar, I am of the view that it will not be proper for this court to grant the relief prayed for, having due regard to the contours of this court's jurisdiction under Article 226. The issue can be settled in the first instance by the Government. I dispose of this Writ Petition declining relief, but permitting the petitioner to approach the Government voicing all his grievances. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk