IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 12628 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- NEELADI SUDHAKARAN, S/O VELAYUDHAN, MEMBER, WARD NO.7, VILAYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. TEKCHAND FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 12628 of 2007(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: G.O.(RT).NO.1172/06/RD DTD. 8.2.2006. EXT.P2: G.O.(RT).NO.1323/06/RD DTD. 15.2.2006. EXT.P3: G.O.(RT).NO.3077/2006/DMD DTD. 2.6.2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): GOVERNMENT ORDER (MS) NO.148/06/FIN., DTD. 28.3.2006. ...... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.12628 of 2007 - C --------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 Government Order cancelling the earlier sanction granted to repair the damaged roads of Vilayur Grama Panchayath covered by Exts.P1 and P2 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner submits that many of the roads in Vilayur Grama panchayath got very seriously damaged because of the natural calamities in the year 2005 and taking note of the immediate requirement to have the roads repaired, the 1st respondent - Government sanctioned a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs and Rs.12 Lakhs as stated in Exts.P1 and P2 respectively. Despite sanctioning of the necessary funds, the 2nd respondent, who is the concerned authority to take consequential steps being the District head of the administration, did not pursue any further steps, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.29674/2006 seeking appropriate reliefs. But during the pendency of the above writ petition, the 2nd respondent filed a W.P.(C).No.12628 of 2007 - C 2 counter affidavit referring to Ext.P3 Government Order dated 2.6.2006 whereby Exts.P1 and P2 sanction were stated as cancelled; pursuant to which the above writ petition was disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the said Government Order, thus leading to the present writ petition. 3. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit mainly contending that passing of Ext.P3 order of cancellation was because of the limited availability of funds to meet the adverse consequences resulted from the natural calamities and in view of the necessity to fix 'priority', depending upon the conditions of the roads, extent of the user and such other relevant aspects. Referring to the Kerala Calamity Relief Fund Rules issued as per Ext.R1(a) Government Order dated 28.3.2006, it is submitted from the part of the 1st respondent that, in respect of the year 2006-07, only a total sum of Rs.89.77 Crores (67.33 crores contributed by the Centre and 22.44 crores contributed by the State) was available for meeting the calamity crisis under the relief fund throughout Kerala. It is also stated that quite a lot of amounts had already fallen in arrears, to be to paid to the W.P.(C).No.12628 of 2007 - C 3 contractors in respect of similar/incidental works pursued earlier and hence that the allegation made by the petitioners referring to extraneous consideration and political allegiance is absolutely wrong and without any basis. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to clause 3 of Ext.R1(a) submits that the calamities covered under the Rules stipulated therein shows that the CRF shall be used only for meeting the expenditure for providing immediate reliefs to the victims of cyclone, drought, earth quake, flood, fire, tsunami, hailstorm, landslide, avalanche, cloudburst and pest attack. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the situation contemplated under Exts.P1 and P2 is entirely different from the situation contemplated under clause 3 of Ext.R1(a) and hence that the reliance sought to be placed on Ext.R1(a) and the inadequacy of funds in the calamity relief fund is totally out of place. 5. The learned Government Pleader, referring to the contents of Exts.P1 and P2, submits that the normal repair works of the roads in question do not form the liability of the State W.P.(C).No.12628 of 2007 - C 4 Government as the same is the lookout of the concerned local authorities/PWD and further that the necessary funds as sanctioned by the 1st respondent/Government vide Exts.P1 and P2 were only because of the adverse circumstances brought by the natural calamities in the year 2005. It is also stated that during the months of February and March, 2006 quite a lot of funds were sanctioned like Exts.P1 and P2 without properly examining the adequate availability of funds under the Scheme, which made the Government to cancel the same by issuance of Ext.P3. 6. After hearing both the sides, it is seen that no arbitrary exercise of power is brought about to interdict the action pursued by the 1st respondent/Government causing issuance of Ext.P3, presumably taking note of the contents and requirements of Ext.R1(a) Rules. Now, after getting instructions, the learned Government Pleader has brought it to the notice of this Court that the repair works of the road mentioned in serial No.3 in Ext.P1 and those in respect of serial Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 covered by Ext.P2 have already been completed using the W.P.(C).No.12628 of 2007 - C 5 Panchayath funds and that steps are reportedly in progress with regard to the other roads. In the said circumstance, the petitioner may approach the concerned local authority or such other appropriate authority who is liable to maintain the said roads and to have them repaired and motorable, making use of the available extent of funds. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. bkn/-