IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3088 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R. GOPAKUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, TRHUNDUTHARAYIL, PALLICKAL.P.O, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PALLICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PAZHAKKULAM.P.O, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. SUNIL KUMAR, SECRETARY, PALLICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PAZHAKULAM.P.O, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (IMPLEADED IN PERSONAL CAPACITY) ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ FOR R2 SRI.SAJJU.S FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPIN DAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 3088 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 10th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a contractor, who has obtained the work of removing clay from private properties within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent-Panchayat as per Ext. P1 contract executed between the petitioner and the Panchayat, which clay has been deposited in private properties on excavation from Aarattuchira belonging to the Panchayat. He is now aggrieved by Ext. P5 reference made by the Secretary to the Government in respect of the permission granted to him by the Panchayat to remove the clay from private properties. The Panchayat had originally granted permission to the petitioner as per Ext. P4 resolution with which the Secretary of the Panchayat disagreed. Therefore, he raised the matter again before the Panchayat, but the Panchayat confirmed the earlier decision. Since the Secretary was of the opinion that the matter should be referred to the Government under Section 182 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, he referred the matter to the Government by Ext. P5, which is under challenge in this writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the reference itself is not maintainable in so far as the conditions for making such a reference as per the proviso to clause 3 of Section 182 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act have not been satisfied. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P5 reference and Ext. P6 order; ii) Declare that Ext. P5 reference and Ext. P6 order are illegal; iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of Panchayat to do every needful act, so as to carry into effect Ext. P4 resolution. iv) declare that the Secretary of Panchayat is bound to carry into effect Ext. P4 resolution.” W.P.C. No. 3088/2009. -: 2 :- 2. I am of opinion that the issue of maintainability of the reference itself can be raised by the petitioner before the Government in which case the Government is bound to consider the same also. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the validity of the reference itself before the Government, I dispose of this writ petition. I further direct the Government to take a final decision on Ext. P5 reference, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.