IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 18698 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ASIYA ABDULSALAM, NIAMATH MANZIL(CHENATHARA), P.O.NADUVATH NAGAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOCHAKKAL, POOCHAKKAL P.O. 3. AROOKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, AROOKUTTY P.O ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. SECRETARY, AROOKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. 5. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ALISSERY ROAD, SOUTH OF COLLECTORATE JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA-688001. 7. PRASANNAN, MEMBER, WARD NO.11, AROOKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, AROOKUTTY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADDL. R8. THE SECRETARY, SANGAMITHRA, PURUSHA SWAYAM SAHAYA SANGAM, NADUVATHU NAGAR, AROOKKUTTY, CHERTHALA. ADDL. R9. THE PRESIDENT, SANGAMAITHRA, PURUSHA SWAYAM SAHAYA SANGAM, NADUVATHU NAGAR, AROOKKUTTY, CHERTHALA. (ADDL. R8 & R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON IA No. 9149/08 DT. 8.8.2008) BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN FOR R7 SMT.V.SREEJA FOR R7 SRI.P.BABU KUMAR FOR ADDL.R8 & 9 SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN FOR R3 & 4 R1, R2 & R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. R6 BY S.C. MR. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 23244 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) Nos. 18698 & 23244 OF 2008 A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 18698/08 claims to be the owner of 4 cents of land acquired by Ext. P1 document dated 6.7.2004. According to her, the area being a water logged one, drainage water was being routed through a pipe connecting to a pit outside the eastern side of the property. It is stated that at a later point of time the pipe was destroyed and thereupon she approached the Panchayat, but however, without any success. Petitioner claims to have again approached various authorities including the Chief Minister. Finally the Panchayat passed Ext. P2 resolution, resolving to lay a pipe connecting the boundary of the petitioner with a tank. This resolution was passed as early as on 15.5.2007. The Government is also seen to have been informed of Ext. P2 and on the basis of which, they have issued Ext. P3 informing the petitioner that the Panchayat has passed such a resolution to redress her W.P.(C) Nos. 18698 & 23244 OF 2008 -2- grievance. Subsequently, the petitioner submits that she has completed laying the pipe within her compound, but however, the same could not be connected to the discharge point, as further work was obstructed by some local residents. In the meantime, petitioner received Ext. P8 from the Pollution Control Board, requiring her to complete the work and threatening action against her. It is thereupon that this writ petition was filed. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is essentially for the implementation of Ext. P2 without any obstruction and if necessary, with the assistance of the police. 3. The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit. The thrust of the averments in the counter affidavit seems to be that there was obstruction from the neighbouring residents for the implementation of Ext. P2. It is those neighbouring residents who have formed an Association and filed W.P.(C) No. 23244/08. They would oppose the implementation of Ext. P2 and submit that they have sought revocation of the resolution by submitting Ext. P10 representation dated 19.7.2008 (produced as Ext. P10 in WP(C) No. 23244/08). 4. Though the contesting respondents including the W.P.(C) Nos. 18698 & 23244 OF 2008 -3- Panchayat are resisting continuance of work for laying of pipe, the fact remains that Ext. P2 resolution still holds the field despite the objections stated to have been filed by the neighbouring residents. So long as the resolution remains in force, the authorities are bound to implement the same and if implementation is obstructed by any one, it is the responsibility of the authorities, particularly the Panchayat, to ensure that such obstructions are removed. 5. I am not impressed by the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23244/08 that in view of Ext. P10 representation filed by the petitioner in this writ petition, the aforesaid resolution should be kept in cold storage. Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23244/08 invites my attention to Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995and submits that this provision enables the Panchayat to cancel or modify resolutions. A reading of the Rule shows that if a representation is made in that behalf, in the manner prescribed, a meeting has to be convened within three months of passing such a resolution. Going by the dates mentioned in Ext. P10 referred to above, it can be seen that the representation was filed long after the W.P.(C) Nos. 18698 & 23244 OF 2008 -4- period prescribed in the rules. 6. True, the proviso to Rule 11 enables the Panchayat to exercise the power of cancellation, but then that also is only if the Panchayat is satisfied that cancellation is called for. In this case, though more than a year has elapsed since the passing of Ext. P2, the Panchayat has not chosen to exercise the power provided in the proviso to Rule 11. Therefore I should accept the contention of the petitioner that the Panchayat also has accepted that the resolution is one requiring to be implemented. In view of this, I direct that the Panchayat shall ensure the implementation of Ext. P2 and if there is obstruction, necessary action shall be taken for its removal. W.P.(C) No. 18698/08 will stand disposed of as above and W.P. (C) No. 23244/08 objecting to the implementation of Ext. P2 will stand dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-