IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17544 of 2009(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- THE PONNANI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PONNANI SOUTH P.O., MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.C.V. MANUVILSAN, MR.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN, MR.A.M.MAJIDA, SMT.K.VIDYA MANUVILSAN, MR.M.R.VIBIN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. PURATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, PURATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.17544 of 2009-K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner is a municipality. The first respondent, a village panchayat has notified the right to use a ferry and run a junkar service across a particular water way. While the first respondent appears to stand on the fact that the said water course is within its territory, the petitioner challenges the aforesaid decision of the first respondent on the ground that it has and had been exercising monopoly rights in operating the said ferry service. This, essentially, is a dispute between the petitioner, a municipality and the first respondent, a panchayat. 2.Where a dispute exists between two or more panchayats, it falls for settlement in terms of WP(C)17544/09 -: 2 :- Section 282 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and if the dispute is between a municipality and a panchayat, it falls for resolution in terms of Section 561 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The object sought to be achieved by those statutory provisions is salutary. The Local Self Government Institutions, be it a Municipality or a Panchayat, have to first find out modalities of settling the disputes between them amicably. If that is not possible, the aforesaid statutory provisions provide for a decision on adjudication of the dispute by the competent authority as prescribed in those statutory provisions. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the competent authority in terms of Section 561 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. All other issues are left open. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/290609