IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 10350 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ M.N. MOHANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 40 MEKKATTU VEEDU, PRAKKANTAM KARA PAMBADUMPARA P.O., UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE PRESIDENT PAMBADUMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT PAMPADUMPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY PAMBADUMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT PAMPADUMPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. G. GOPALAKRISHNAN, MEMBER, WARD NO.VIII PAMBADUMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT PAMBADUMPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FOR R3 SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN FOR R3 SRI.P.A.KUMARAN FOR R2 SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10350 OF 2008 (F) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The prayers sought in the writ petition are to quash Ext.P4 and to require respondents 1 and 2 to disburse the petitioner financial assistance intended to homeless persons on the basis of the recommendation by the concerned Grama Sabha. Petitioner submits that he is a physically handicapped person eligible for financial assistance for the construction of a house in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Development Scheme. It is stated that the respondent Panchayat did not grant him the benefit at the instance of the 3rd respondent and that it was given to an ineligible person and therefore he moved the Ombudsman which also was unsuccessful. 2. The primary requirement for the benefit of the scheme is that one should be a handicapped person and should be homeless. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent Panchayat, producing documents in support of its contentions, it has been stated in para 7 thus: When petitioner submitted again an application for financial assistance under the scheme for the year WPC 10350/08 :2 : 2005-06, since from the priority lists for the previous year, petitioner was the next person in queue to get the assistance, an enquiry was conducted with regard to his eligibility for the same. On enquiry it was revealed that the petitioner already possesses two houses. The Grama Sabha then rejected his application on this reason. He cannot be said to be coming within the ambit of “homeless” people. He is residing in one of the houses and the other one is under construction. It was against this decision of the Grama Sabha that the petitioner had approached the Legal Services Authority. The Chairman Legal Services Authority had directed the Panchayath to conduct a detailed enquiry. Accordingly, a detailed enquiry was conducted and it was revealed that the petitioner is presently residing in a building consisting of three rooms with cement floor and asbestos roofing. Petitioner is conducting a shop also in the very same building. Just adjacent to the same, a new house is being constructed by him. The building under construction is of 800 sq.feet and consists of hall, three rooms, kitchen and a sit out. Construction now completed is estimated to be of around Rs.1 lakh. Foundation work is over. Brick work has started. Construction upto the Lintel level has been finished. It was for the completion of construction of this building that petitioner had approached the Panchayat for fund. A person having two houses cannot be termed as a homeless person. This fact was brought to the notice of the Legal Services Authority. Similarly, in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it has been stated thus in para 6: The Grama sabha for ward No.8 was convened on 11.6.2005. In the said Grama Sabha I presided and I read out the name of the beneficiary who is entitled for financial assistance for construction of house meant for physically handicapped. The selection was made by the beneficiary committee constituted for the purpose. Smt.G.Ponnuthai, a physically handicapped lady having WPC 10350/08 :3 : no dwelling house was selected as the beneficiary. This was objected to by the writ petitioner at the Grama Saba. The issue was deliberated in the Grama sabha and all other residents who had assembled for the Grama sabha objected to the claim of the writ petitioner pointing out that the writ petitioner is already having 2 houses whereas Smt.G.Ponnuthai does not have any house of her own and the grama sabha unanimously decided to confer the benefit on Smt.G.Ponnuthai. The list was approved by the grama sabha unanimously. The said resolution has been entered in the minutes book of the grama sabha. 3. From the materials thus produced, it is therefore evident that on an enquiry conducted by the respondents, they have found out that the petitioner is not a homeless person and that the benefit was disbursed based on the decision of the Grama Sabha to a person who was actually homeless. Although the petitioner describes one of the houses as a hut and the second as one under construction and the third, as the one where his parents are residing, he has a roof under which he can sleep unlike the person to whom the benefit has been granted. In such circumstances, I do not think any perversity has been made out in the orders passed in Ext.P4 warranting interference of this Court. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp