IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34613 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AMMINI RAJAN, KOMPARKERIL PUTHUVALIL, NIRANAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, NIRANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NIRANAM. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.34613/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HUT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.5.2000. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2006 IN W.P(C) NO.34037/06. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.10.09. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.11.2009. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.34613 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner states that she belongs to a scheduled caste and lives with her husband and three children in the hutment which is shown in Ext.P1 photograph, aside a channel, over which, is a culvert. She states that her husband suffers from various ailments and their family lives by conducting a tea shop in their dwelling unit. She states that at the instance of one K.K.Kuruvila who obtained Ext.P3 judgment from this Court, the petitioner's husband is directed by the secretary of the grama panchayat to vacate the premises and demolish the hut. The impugned Exts.P4 and P5 proceed as if this Court had directed the secretary of the grama panchayat to ensure demolition of the structure in which the petitioner resides with family. It would be extremely discourteous to this Court to make such an attribute on the face of Ext.P3 judgment, wherein, a learned Judge of this Court has categorically stated WPC.34613/09 2 that the representation of the petitioners therein are directed to be considered and that this Court does not propose to examine the genuineness of the grievances highlighted in that writ petition. It was also stated that a decision will be taken after hearing the parties. The impugned order has been issued without hearing the parties and essentially saddling this Court with responsibility of having directed the issuance of the order under attack. 2.In view of the above, at the stage of admission, an order was issued on 2.12.2009 requiring the grama panchayat secretary to state by affidavit whether he knows to read and write English language and if he does not know English language, he was given opportunity to swear to the affidavit in Malayalam. That course was adopted because no reasonably advised person would pass the impugned order in the manner he has done it on the face of the directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment, which is delivered in English language. Today, the grama panchayat secretary has filed an affidavit stating that WPC.34613/09 3 he is able to read and write English language and that any inconvenience caused to this Court by any order passed by him is deeply regretted. 3.No inconvenience is caused to a court by any person passing orders. But when such orders become palpably unsustainable, it results in situations where citizens have to run to the courts, including to this constitutional Court, seeking redressal. If the petitioner lives with her children and husband in the hutment which is shown in Ext.P1, what else but injustice has been meted out to her as per the impugned order. From a hutment aside a culvert, she has been forced to reach this Court for relief, in view of the impugned order passed under the cover of a direction issued by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Nothing needs to be said as any other reason, to strike off the impugned decision. 4.In the result, this writ petition is allowed quashing Ext.P4. With the facts in hand, I am inclined to pass an order of costs, WPC.34613/09 4 not less than Rs.25,000/-, payable personally by the grama panchayat secretary. But, I do not propose to do that in view of the directions being issued hereunder. 5.The pleadings of the petitioner, on the face of it, show that she and her family belongs to the underprivileged sector of the society, economically and socially. There is no reason why the panchayat shall not consider supporting that family to the extent possible. By the force of this judgment, the secretary of the grama panchayat will place a report regarding the life and circumstances of the petitioner before the grama panchayat, with a request to the panchayat to decide as to whether any ameliorative relief could be extended to the petitioner and her family by way of rehabilitation. No action shall be taken against the petitioner and family without providing the petitioner's husband and the petitioner appropriate opportunity of being heard. Let the decision regarding rehabilitation be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If needed, the WPC.34613/09 5 grama panchayat will get the opinion and assistance of the Social Welfare Department through the Social Welfare Officer having jurisdiction over the area and the Tahsildar concerned and if needed, the District Collector. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.8/12.