IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 36421 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT.SAROJINI, W/O.VALLON AND D/O.RAMANKUTTY, PALLIYIL HOUSE, KOONAMPARAMBU, WARD NO.9, MALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALA (PO), THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.DHANIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. MALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALA (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. MALA BLOCK PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KURUVILASSERI (PO), MALA (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SECRETARY & BDO, MALA BLOCK PANCHAYATH, KURUVILASSERI (PO), MALA (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, MALA BLOCK PANCHAYATH, KURUVILASSERI (PO), MALA (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. C.K.KRISHNAN, CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, VADAMA (PO), MALA (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY FOR R2 MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.36421 of 2009 (W) -------------------------- Dated, this the 31st day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P4 application was submitted by the petitioner for the benefit of Indira Awaz Yajana. In the application, against column No.14, she submitted that she had not received benefit of any similar scheme earlier. The application was processed. The benefit of the Scheme was ordered to be granted and two instalments were also released. 2. Subsequently, on the basis that some complaints were received against the petitioner that she did not disclose the receipt of the benefit under a different scheme, proceedings were initiated on the orders of the District Collector. It was accordingly that Ext.P10 dated 02/08/2007 was issued by the 4th respondent stating that for non disclosure of receipt of the benefit of a different scheme, the benefit already disbursed to her under the Indira Awaz Yojana Scheme is liable to be recovered. It was stated that in order to avoid recovery proceedings, the petitioner should remit the amounts, which were already paid. 3. Thereafter, by Ext.P14 she was informed that receipt of benefit under a different scheme does not render her ineligible for WP(C) No.36421/2009 -2- receiving the benefits under the Indira Awaz Yojana Scheme. It was on receipt of Ext.P14 that challenging Ext.P10, this writ petition is filed. 4. If as stated in Ext.P14, the fact that the petitioner had received benefit under the Kerala Development Scheme does not render her ineligible for the benefit of Indira Awaz Yojana Scheme, Ext.P10 is illegal. 5. Having regard to the contents of Ext.P14, which is referred to above, I feel that this certainly is a matter to be reconsidered. Accordingly, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 4th respondent, who has issued Ext.P10, shall reconsider the eligibility of the petitioner to receive the benefit of Indira Awaz Yojana Scheme, in the light of Ext.P14. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition before the 4th respondent, who shall reconsider the matter and pass orders as above. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg