IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 2428 of 2008(L) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.P.LOHITHAKSHAN,S/O.CHEVI, KUTTATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODINCHI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. NANNAMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY NANNAMBRA, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS MALAPPURAM. 4. PROJECT OFFICER JALANIDHI, PERINTALMANNA. 5. P.GOVINDANKUTTY, CHAIRMAN SOUBHAGYA WATER SUPPLY SCHEME WARD NO.16, NANNAMBRA, MALAPPURAM. ADDL. R6. SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. (ADDL. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS SUO MOTU VIDE ORDER DT. 18.6.2008 IN WP(C) No. 2428/08) BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE FOR R4 SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R5 SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R.1 GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 2428 OF 2008 L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th June 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the resident of Ward No. XVI of the 1st respondent Panchayat. The controversy in this writ petition is in relation to a common well constructed by the Panchayat in the aforesaid ward. According to the petitioner, the well was taken over by Jalanidhi scheme in 2003 and was to be operated with contribution of the residents in the area. It is stated that the 54 families in the area could not make contribution and consequently they were excluded from the scheme and denied water supply from the well. However, at a later stage, they agreed to make contribution and representations were made to the authorities concerned for getting themselves included in the scheme. On the representation so made by them, a meeting was convened and in Ext. P1 minutes the offer made by the petitioner is endorsed. It is stated that the 5th respondent had objected to the offer made and rejected the proposals made by the petitioner. Thereupon again W.P.(C) No.2428 OF 2008-L - 2 - the petitioner pursued the matter by filing Ext. P2 application before the Panchayat. Complaining of delay in considering Ext. P2, the petitioner approached this Court and in W.P.(C) No. 13284/07 this Court directed the Panchayat to consider Ext. P2 within the time fixed therein. Accordingly, a meeting was convened, the minutes of which is Ext. P4. Though the issue was discussed there was no unanimity among the parties. Finally the suggestion of the President to take over the well from the 5th respondent was accepted by the majority, but subject to clearance by the legal adviser. Thereafter the matter was referred to the legal adviser for advice and it would appear that the advice given was against Ext. P4 decision. It is stated that according to the legal adviser, in view of the earlier decision of 2003 to hand over the well to the 5th respondent, the Panchayat is incompetent to pass a subsequent resolution to the contrary. It is in this background the writ petition was filed praying for a direction to the Panchayat to implement Ext. P4. 2. Respondents 1, 4 and 5 have filed separate counter affidavits. The 5th respondent is vehemently resisting the prayer W.P.(C) No.2428 OF 2008-L - 3 - made. Apart from merits, the Counsel also attacks against the locus standi of the petitioner for filing the writ petition. The 5th respondent has produced various documents to controvert the contention of the petitioner that the 5th respondent has not taken over the well pursuant to the decision in 2003. According to the 5th respondent the well has been taken over and is maintained by themselves. Yet another contention that is raised by the 5th respondent is that in view of the controversy that is raised between the petitioner, the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent and in view of the uncertainty in the continued water supply, one of the ward members has approached the Government by filing Ext. R5(j) representation, invoking its power under Section 191(1) of the Panchayat Raj Act. It is also stated that the Secretary of the Panchayat has already given his report on the representation made and that a decision of the Government is awaited. 3. The power of the Government under Section 19(1) to deal with the issue as the one raised in Ext. R5(j) has to be conceded. If that be so, at this stage when the statutory authority is seized of the matter it may not be proper for this Court to deal with the rival W.P.(C) No.2428 OF 2008-L - 4 - claims on its merits. In my view what is appropriate is, to call upon the Government to take a final decision in this matter on an expeditious basis and that too with notice to the parties concerned. Accordingly, I direct that the additional 6th respondent shall decide the matter on merits with notice to the petitioner and the respondents. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months of production of a copy of this judgment and with notice to the petitioner, the Panchayat and respondents 4 and 5. 4. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition and other documents before the additional 6th respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-