IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 12630 of 2003(C) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NAYARAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY MR. K.C.ELDHO ADV. MR.VARGHESE.J.PUNNACHALIL ADV. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. A.M.IKBAL, S/O. LATE MAMADU, ALIYAM VEETTIL HOUSE, EDAVANKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY IT'S SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYAT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. MR.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 27294 OF 2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 12630 of 2003. ORDERS ON C.M.P.NO.21524 OF 2003 AND I.A.NO.4478 OF 2003 CLOSED. 30.1.2009 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.10.2001 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 12.11.2001 ISSUED BY R3. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.6670 OF 2002 DTD 15.3.2002. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT GOVERNMENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.2.2003 REVIEWING EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. --------------------------------------- O.P.NO.12630 & W.P.(C)No. 27294 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT O.P.No.12630/2003 is filed by the Nayarambalam Grama Panchayat, challenging Ext.P5 order of the Government of Kerala reviewing its earlier order, Ext.P4, passed under the erstwhile Section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act prior to its amendment by Act 13 of 1999, in a revision filed by the 1st respondent, in respect of amounts payable by him as an auction purchaser for conducting a fishing farm of the Panchayat. W.P. (c) No.27294/2003 is filed by the auction purchaser seeking the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2 nd and 3 rd Respondents to give back possession of the fishing farm to the petitioner, forthwith. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents No.2 & 3 to grant extension of so much period as is lost to the petitioner due to closure of Banerji Thodu and taking possession of the farm by the Panchayat from the petitioner taking into account the present market value of the farm”. The facts necessary for disposal of these original petitions are as O.P.No.12630/03 2 follows: 2. The Panchayat conducted an auction of the right to fish in the particular farm, which was bid by the contractor for an amount of Rs.9,35,100/-. The contractor defaulted payment of amounts due. Therefore, Ext.P1 notice in O.P.No.12630/03 was issued to the Contractor. He challenged the same by filing O.P.No.30163/2001. At the same time, he filed an appeal also before the 3rd respondent – Deputy Director of Panchayat. That original petition was disposed of directing disposal of the appeal filed by the Contractor. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P2 appellate order was passed directing the Panchayat to reconsider the issue of granting remission in payment of auction amount by the contractor to the Panchayat. The Panchayat reconsidered the matter and decided that since already a remission of Rs.77,925/- had been granted to the contractor, no further remission can be granted in respect of the amount payable. The contractor again challenged the order of the Panchayat before this Court. By Ext.P3 judgment in O.P.No.6670/2002, this Court relegated the Contractor to the remedy by way of revision to the Government. Accordingly, there was a direction to the O.P.No.12630/03 3 Government to dispose of the revision filed by the Contractor also. Accordingly, the Government passed Ext.P4 order granting the contractor a total remission of Rs.2 lakhs including the remission of Rs.77,925/- already granted, as a special case. Subsequently, the Government reviewed Ext.P4 order and passed Ext.P5 order whereby it was held that since the contractor has already remitted Rs.6,30,132/-, no further amounts need be paid by him to the Panchayat. The Panchayat is challenging Ext.P5 order of the Government on several grounds. First is that there was no notice to the Panchayat in the review petition. Secondly, that there was no additional material before the Government to review the earlier order passed and thirdly, that Ext.P5 order is without authority since no power of review has been conferred by the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act on the Government to review its own orders passed in a revision under the erstwhile Section 276. 3. In the original petition filed by the Contractor, he wants extension of the period of contract so that he can recoup his loss caused allegedly on account of the action of the Panchayat in closing the 'Banerji canal' and taking possession of the farm before the expiry of th period of contract. O.P.No.12630/03 4 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Section 276 prior to its amendment by Act 13 of 1999 contained only a provision for filing a revision before the Government. The Act did not confer any power on the Government to review its own orders passed in revision under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is settled law that the power to review 'own' orders is not inherent in the power of revision itself, unless the same is specifically conferred by the Statute. Here, the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act provides for a revision before the Government against the order of the Panchayat. However, no power of review has been conferred by the Statute on the Government to review its own orders in revision. That being so, Ext.P5 order has been passed without jurisdiction and is therefore liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is quashed. The result is that the Contractor is liable to pay the balance amount after deduction of Rs.2 lakhs granted as remission by Ext.P4 order out of the amount of Rs.9,35,100/- for which he has bid the fishing rights in auction after adjusting amounts already paid. O.P.No.12630/2003 is allowed as above. O.P.No.12630/03 5 6. As far as the writ petition filed by the Contractor is concerned, in so far as Ext.P4 order of the Government in the other original petition has become final, he cannot now raise a claim for extension of period of licence. That being so, there is no merit in W.P.(C) No.27294/2003. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.12630/03 6