IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 28178 of 2007(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- V.L. THOMAS, BLOCK PANCHAYAT MEMBER, KADUTHURUTHY BLOCK PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVT. (DA) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED: R4. THE KADUTHURUTHY BLOCK PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KADUTHURUTHY BLOCK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS ADDL.4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DTD. 24/09/07 IN WPC. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/208, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.28178/2007 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF DRAFT PLAN PREPARED BY THE KADUTHURUTHY BLOCK PANCHAYATH FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.183/07/LSGD DTD. 24/07/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEMS PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ON 8TH AUGUST, 2007. 2ND RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R2(A): COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.128/07/LSGD DTD.14/05/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.28178 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition under Article 226 the petitioner who is an elected member of the Kaduthuruthy Block Panchayat from its Kothanalloor Division challenges paragraph 6.14 of Ext.P2 guidelines prepared by the Kerala State Planning Board and notified by the Government vide GO(MS) No.183/07/LSGD dated 24-7-2007 regarding subsidy and related issues for the 11th Five year plan of Local Self Government. First respondent is the State and second respondent is Principal Secretary, LSGD, third respondent is Secretary to Government in Planning and Economic Affairs Department and the Kaduthuruthy Block Panchayat was subsequently impleaded as Additional 4th respondent. The terms of paragraph 6.14 of Ext.P2 deal with minimum allocation of projects. The paragraph provides that District Panchayat shall not take up projects costing less than Rs.14 lakhs. Similarly the minimum allocation of projects for Block Panchayats/Municipalities would be Rs.5 lakhs and that of Corporation would be Rs.15 lakhs. According to the petitioner, as per the spirit of Janakeeyasuthranam, the plans and projects are to be carried out in a time bound basis. The funds allotted for a particular financial WP(C)N0.28178/07 -2- year/plan year has to be spent in the very same accounting year and cannot be utilized in the next year. If fund allotted for a particular year/plan year for 2007-08 is not utilized in that year itself, the fund will be lapsed. The grievance of the petitioner is that by introduction of clause 6.14 in Ext.P2, the projects already prepared and pending for approval in Ext.P1 the draft plan and suggestions prepared by the Kaduthuthrhy Block Panchayat cannot be implemented. Since paragraph 6.14 was introduced belatedly, new projects above 5 lakhs will have to be planned and estimated and sanctioned and implemented for which there is no possibility due to paucity of time, this year. According to the petitioner paragraph 6.14 of Ext.P2 should not be made applicable for the financial year/accounting year 2007-08. The above paragraph, according to him will spoil the aim and goal of Janakeeyasuthranam since projects having less than 5 lakhs cannot be carried out. Requirement of the people of the locality are reflected in Ext.P1 and P2 stands in the way of even be approved. Paragraph 6.14 is arbitrary and illogical and the same will result in non-implementation of small projects and works proposed in Ext.P1 which are necessary in the interests of people of the various wards including that of the petitioner. Paragraph 6.14 it is alleged helps only large projects. Development of even small local roads cannot be be undertaken. This will result in a situation where many divisions of Block Panchayat will WP(C)N0.28178/07 -3- not get any project since the fund is divided into bigger lots. Raising various grounds writ petitioner prays that paragraph 6.14 of Ext.P2 be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued directing respondents to withdraw paragraph 6.14 of Ext.P2. Further relief sought for is a direction to the respondents to approve Ext.P1 plan and similar plans prepared by the 3 tier Local Self Government Institutions all over Kerala. 2. A very serious and unusually lengthy counter affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of the Government in the Local Self Government Department to which the petitioner has submitted a reply affidavit. 3. Strenuous and extensive arguments were addressed before me by Sri.P.M.Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner. Those arguments could be met to a certain extent by Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Government Pleader. 4. It will not be correct to say that paragraph 6.14 of Ext.P2 imposes a complete ban on projects costing less than 15 lakhs in the case of District Panchayat. It is stated in that paragraph itself that in certain unavoidable and emergency cases like completion and commissioning of a project started earlier or projects meant for combating drought/flood and other natural calamities, projects costing less than the prescribed minimum allocation can be taken up. It is also WP(C)N0.28178/07 -4- clarified that in the case of projects for the repair, renovation, maintenance or additions to existing infrastructure and purchase of equipments to the institutions transferred, this limit is not applicable. I do not mean to say that the provisions made in paragraph 6.14 alone are sufficient to redress the grievance voiced by the petitioner. At the same time I am not inclined to quash paragraph 6.14 of Ext.P2 straight away since I find that the said paragraph has merits as well as demerits. I am of the view that the Government should have a second look at paragraph 6.14 of Ext.P2 in the light of the grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition some of which merit consideration. 5. Under these circumstances I dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to submit a representation before the third respondent highlighting the grounds raised in this writ petition and if the third respondent receives such a representation from the petitioner within two weeks of the petitioner receiving copy of this judgment the third respondent will hear the petitioner and pass orders within two months therefrom taking a decision regarding the incorporation of suitable amendments to paragraph 6.14 of Ext.P2 (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/23208