IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27081 of 2004(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.V.ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O. RAMA WARRIER N.V EASWARAMANGALAM, THAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. PONNANI MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. CHAIRMAN, PONNANI MUNICIPALITY, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR R2 BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 27081 of 2004(Y) ---------------------------------- APPENDIX ------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE BYE LAW APPROVED BY THE PANCHAYATH DT. NIL EXT.P2 COPY OF THE BYE LAW DATED NIL. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT OF THE INSTITUTION INCLUSIVE OF 10TH DECEMBER 2003 EXT.P4. COPY OF THE AGENDA OF THE MEETING OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DATED 18.8.2003. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 6.12.2003. ET.P6. COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE MUNICIPALITY DT. 10.12.03. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MUNICIPALITY DT 25.2.04. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.2.2004 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------ / TRUE COPY / P.A TO JUDGE VK A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.27081 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, co-ordinator of a committee constituted as per bye laws approved by the respondent Municipality complains that after having started a computer centre for training, the Municipality has taken over all the assets of the institution forcibly, despite protests and seeks the following reliefs. “a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to hand over possession of the assets of computer park and the premises of the project to the managing committee constituted under the bye laws of the project forthwith. b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to settle all the claims of the petitioner and employees of the computer park within a period fixed by this Hon'ble court.” W.P.C.No.27081 of 2004 2 2. In regard to relief No.1, it is clear that the Municipality is the authority to take a decision as to whether the computer park is to function or not. The petitioner who is a Co- ordinator has no locus to challenge the action of the Municipality and hence the first prayer cannot be allowed. 3. In regard to the second prayer, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that several claims are pending with the respondents in regard to the salary and perks of the employees including amounts due to the petitioner. If there is any such claim, the 1st respondent is bound to consider settle such claims if found payable. 4. Hence the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider any claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as early as possible and within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.27081 of 2004 3 W.P.C.No.27081 of 2004 4 W.P.C.No.27081 of 2004 5 THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J. Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011