IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19130 of 2009(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.V.VISWANATHAN, AGED 49 YEARS S/O. SHRI VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, VRINDAVAN, CHATTUKALAM ROAD, KIZHAKKE KADUNGALLOOR , U.C.COLLEGE P.O.ALUVA. BY ADVS. MR. M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SMT.I.VINAYAKUMARI, SMT.PRIYANKA PRASAD. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, KADUNGALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE), MUPPATHADOM P.O, ALUVA -683 110. 4. T.P.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, PRIYADARSINI, HOUSE NO.11/392,CHATTUKALAM ROAD, KIZHAKKE KADUNGALLOOR, U.C.COLLEGE P.O.ALUVA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. MANU .V, R3 BY ADVS. MR.V.M.KURIAN, MR.MATHEW B. KURIAN, MR.K.T.THOMAS, R4 BY MR.T.P.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR(PARTY-IN-PERSON). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19130/2009-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. E-286/07 DTD. 30/08/2007 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 11/11/2008 OF THE R.4. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPORT NO. G-666/2006 DTD. 08/01/2009. EXTP.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/05/2009 IN O.P. NO. 1242/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A3 (E1 688/09) DTD. 20/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.19130 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner and the 4th respondent are neighbours. Alleging that the third respondent is not taking effective steps to redress his grievances, the 4th respondent moved the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. In terms of the Panchayat Raj Act, learned Ombudsman wanted a report from the second respondent. Ext.P3 report was made. Learned Ombudsman, therefore, issued Ext.P4 order requiring the Secretary to take effective steps to redress the grievance of the complainant, to pass specific orders and to take follow up action to implement the same. The secretary has, however, passed the impugned Ext.P5 directing the felling of the two trees. It does not say any reason why those trees are to be felled and also does not show that it was issued after hearing the parties. Whatever that be, the distinction between the jurisdiction of the Village-Panchayat and its Secretary in terms of the Panchayat Raj Act needs to be borne in mind. The powers of the Secretary WPC.19130/09 Page numbers is confined only to cropping of the trees while it is within the purview of the powers of the panchayat to order the felling of trees. The legislative vision behind this is that the panchayat will take care of the flora and fauna within the panchayat limits also and the last thing that could be done is to cut down a tree if it becomes absolutely essential that such a course is to be adopted. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order has necessarily to go. In the result, Ext.P5 is quashed and the petitioner and the 4th respondent are directed to appear before the secretary of the panchayat on 24.8.2009 so that they could be heard by the secretary. If, on materials, it is concluded that the situation may warrant the felling of the trees, the secretary will put up the files to the panchayat. Otherwise, appropriate directions will be issued to ensure that no right of the 4th respondent is infringed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.10/8.