IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 15794 of 2007(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.REMADEVI, ANGANVADI WORKER, CENTRE NO.1, URBAN - II, PUTHENKOTTA, KURIATHY WARDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.G.SUDHEER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS, URBAN-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER MR. V. TEKCHAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15794/2007-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17/07/06 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/06/06 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE WARD COUNCILOR. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 21/04/07 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE BLOCK COMMITTEE, KARAMANA OF INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.3. DTD. 04/05/07. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLES OF THE LOCALITY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 15794 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Exts.P4 and P6 orders passed by the third respondent directing the petitioner to shift the Anganvadi Centre No.1 from the existing premises to some other place, are subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner is an 'Anganvadi teacher' who is eking out her living from the meagre amount of Rs. 1400/- per mensem being given to her as honorarium. The above Anganvadi was functioning in the very same building for nearly two decades and while so, allegedly at the instance of another person, who is running a similar institution elsewhere in the locality, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 order asking her to shift the Anganvadi Centre to some other place, stating that the existing building was in a dilapidated condition and that it was not safe to permit the Anganvadi to continue there in view W.P.(C) No. 15794 OF 2007 2 of the threat to the lives and limbs of the children. 3. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner carried out necessary repairs and the matter was reported to the third respondent vide Ext.P2. That apart, the concerned councillor of the 'Ward' also certified the repair works as carried out and he highlighted the necessity to have the Centre continued in the very same premises, lest the children who are the beneficiaries of the said Centre and belonging to extremely poor families in the locality should suffer. Then the third respondent issued Ext.P4 order asking the petitioner to shift the Centre from the concerned building, this time, however stating that it was due to its functioning in a “party office”. It appears that the owner of the building is the 'Indian National Congress', who submitted Ext. P5 representation before the third respondent pointing out that the Centre was functioning in the above building for more than 25 years and that it was actually being made use of by the children, girls and women who belonged to the lower strata of the society. It has been further stated therein that, but for the fact that the W.P.(C) No. 15794 OF 2007 3 building is owned by the Indian National Congress, it has no nexus with the party and not even a 'board' or address have been displayed or exhibited in the premises. Notwithstanding this, the third respondent stuck to its original stand, as reflected in Ext.P4 and directed the petitioner vide Ext.P6 to shift the Centre to some other building within two weeks, lest adverse consequences should follow . Met with the situation, the people of the locality including the parents/guardians of the children who are studying in the said Anganvadi filed Ext. P7 representation before the first respondent seeking for immediate interference. Apprehending coercive steps, the petitioner has approached this court and is still continuing in the premises, by virtue of the interim order dated 25.05.2007. 4. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the building was in a dangerous condition and was unfit for functioning the Anganvadi Centre. However, it has been admitted in paragraph No.2 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner has repaired the building ; simultaneously adding that W.P.(C) No. 15794 OF 2007 4 it is for the PWD to inspect the building rented out for Government purposes. In the instant case, running of the 'Anganvadi' by the petitioner and the lease arrangement entered between the landlord and the petitioner cannot be regarded as a building let out to the Government for any Governmental purpose, though functioning of the same is a task undertaken by the petitioner under the Scheme, in consideration of the honorarium specified. It is also relevant to note the admission made by the third respondent in paragraph No.2 of the counter affidavit that the department will provide only a nominal rent of Rs.500/- as fixed by the Government of India and nothing more. The petitioner submits that no building is available in the locality for such a low rent and further that the total extent of honorarium given to her is only Rs.1400/- per mensem. 5. With regard to the stand of the 3rd respondent that the Anganvadi Centre is functioning in a building belonging to a political party, no rules or regulations have been produced before this court to show any adverse stipulations in this W.P.(C) No. 15794 OF 2007 5 regard. The assertion made by the petitioner with reference to Ext.P5 that but for the ownership of the building, there is no connection with any political party in any manner and not even a 'board' or address is displayed has not been controverted from the part of the respondents. On the other hand, what has been stated in paragraph No. 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent is that he is not aware whether any political activities are going on there, which obviously reveals that the third respondent has not conducted any enquiry before passing Exts.P4 and P6 orders or even at the time of filing the counter affidavit before this Court. 6. In the above circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the stand taken by the respondents in asking the petitioner to shift the 'Anganvadi Centre' from the existing premises as ordered in Exts.P4 and P6, which hence, are set aside. However, this will not prevent the respondents from causing the concerned building being inspected by P.W.D. or such other authority from the safety point of view and to give W.P.(C) No. 15794 OF 2007 6 necessary instructions to the petitioner for carrying out such repairs as found to be fit and proper for continuing the functioning of the 'Anganvadi Centre' in the very same premises. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk