IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 22299 of 2006(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SPARTANS KOOTHATTUKULAM, REGISTRATION NO.ER.478/87, KOOTHATTUKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MANOJ K.MATHEW, KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, OLIYAPPURAM, VADAKAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. KOOTHATTUKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOOTHATTUKULAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR – R2 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SANTHOSH JOSE SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. - R3 SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.22299/2006 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE CLUB, SPARTANS KOOTHATTUKULAM DTD. 08/01/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION GIVEN BY THE CLUB DTD. 02/06/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION N O.II DTD. 12/02/2004 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.III (1) DTD. 14/06/2004 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/06/2004 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE DY.DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE DY.DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 29/06/2004. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/05/2004 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8; COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.3692/2004/LSGD DTD. 21/10/2004. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DTD. 28/02/2006 PUBLISHING 'DESHABHIMANI' DAILY DTD.02/03/2006. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 05/05/2006. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 06/06/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN LAR NO.68/92 DTD. 26/11/1992 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P13: THE RECENT PHOTOGRAPHS 3 IN NUMBERS OF KSRTC BUS STAND KOOTHATTUKULAM. EXT.P14: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STADIUM OF KOOTHATTUKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH. Kss ..2/- ...2..... WPC.NO.22299/2006 D RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.II DTD. 12/02/2004 TAKEN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R2: COPY OF THE DECISION LETTER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.R3: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.III (1) DTD. 14/06/2004 TAKEN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R4: COPY OF THE LETTER SEND TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM. EXT.R5: COPY OF THE LETTER SEND BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ERNAKULAM TO THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R6: COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER DTD.21/10/2004. EXT.R7: COPY OF THE NOTICE CALLING PUBLIC MEETING ON 24/07/2004. EXT.R8: COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE OF THE PERSON ATTENDED THE MEETING. EXT.R9: COPY OF THE LETTER SANCTIONING FUNDS BY THE M.L.A. EXT.R10: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COLLECTOR DTD. 27/05/2005. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 22299 OF 2006 - D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P3 resolution of the 1st respondent Panchayat and Ext. P8 order of the 2nd respondent. A direction to the 1st respondent to maintain the stadium as such is also sought for. 2. As already noticed Exts. P3 and P8 are sought to be quashed. Ext.P3 is a resolution passed by the respondent Panchayat resolving to give a portion of its stadium for the use of KSRTC as a bus stand. This resolution of the Panchayat was approved by the Government as per Ext. P8, subject to the condition that in case at any point of time the bus stand ceased to be de-functional the land will revert back to the Panchayat. 3. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, it shall be the duty of the Village Panchayat to meet the requirements of the Village Panchayat area in respect of the matters enumerated in the Third Schedule. According to him, among the various duties, one is regarding W.P.(C) No.22299/2006 (D) - 2 - sports and cultural activities which includes construction of play grounds. It is submitted that it was in pursuance to the aforesaid statutory duty of the Panchayat that it established and maintained the stadium. He would further contend that in terms of Section 166(8) of the Act the Panchayat does not have the authority to sell, transfer, alienate or pledge the properties transferred to it. Therefore, the counsel submits that the resolution of the Panchayat to transfer a portion of the stadium to the KSRTC is totally unauthorized and is against the provisions of the Act. According to him, the KSRTC is having another bus stand within the Panchayat area itself. Feference is made to Exts. P12 to P14 in relation to the proceedings initiated for acquisition of land for establishment of the KSRTC bus stand. 4. In so far as the contention relying on Section 166 and in particular, Section 166(8) of the Act is concerned, on a closer reading of this provision, I am not in a position to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel. Section 166(6) provides that the Government shall, as soon as may be, after the commencement of this Act, transfer all institutions, schemes, buildings and other properties, assets and liabilities connected with the matters referred to in the Third Schedule to the Village W.P.(C) No.22299/2006 (D) - 3 - Panchayats and every institution so transferred shall be in the name of the said Village Panchayat and shall be known accordingly. Section 166(8) which places embargo on the power of the Panchayat from selling, transferring, alienating or pledging the property is confined to properties transferred to the said Panchayat in terms of Section 166(6) referred to above. 5. This position is more clear from the rules contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Acquisition and Disposal of Property) Rules, 2005. Rule 12 of the said Rule provides that notwithstanding anything contained in rule 8, the Panchayats shall not sell, transfer, alienate, create any encumbrance on, or otherwise dispose of, any property transferred to them by Government under sub section (6) of section 166 or sub section (5) of section 172 sub section (5) section 173 of the Act. 6. In so far as the subject matter in question is concerned, it is not in dispute that the land for the stadium was acquired by the Panchayat from private individuals during 1999. Hence, evidently this is not a property which was transferred by the Government to the Panchayat in terms of Section 166 of the Act and if that be so, the embargo created under sub-section (8) thereof does not apply to the property in question. W.P.(C) No.22299/2006 (D) - 4 - 7. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel that there are other bus stands within the Panchayat area and outside in close proximity to the site in question, and therefore, it is unnecessary to establish yet another bus stand, I do not think this Court sitting in this jurisdiction will be justified in assessing the requirement of a bus stand. These are matters essentially for the Panchayat to decide and this Court is ill equipped to sit in judgment over such a decision of the Panchayat. The Panchayat consisting of the representatives of the people are presumed to be having better knowledge about the requirements of the area. In that exercise of their wisdom if the Panchayat decides to have a bus stand, unless the said decision is vitiated by an extreme arbitrariness or perversion this Court will not be justified in interfering the same. On the materials placed, I am not in a position to hold that the decision of the Panchayat is vitiated either by perversity or arbitrariness. The writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-