IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38612 of 2010() ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- VALLIKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VALLIKKUNNU, MALAPPURAM DISTICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT JAMEELA.V. W/O. BASHEER, AGED 35 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001 2. A.V. SHAJI, SECRETARY, VALLIKKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673314. 3. MR. ARAVINDAN.P.T., PAU III, CHORODE, KOZHIKODE.PIN- 673 001 4. THE COMMUNIST MARXIST PARTY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LOCAL COMMITTEE SECRETARY VALLIKKUNU LOCAL COMMITTEE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN- 673 314 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001 R1 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.38612 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the Vallikkunnu Grama Panchayat challenging Ext.P4 order to the extent it transfers the second respondent from the post of Secretary of Vallikkunnu Grama Panchayat, on the ground that the transfer is politically motivated and arbitrary. When the matter was taken up for admission, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State questioned the maintainability of the writ petition itself on the ground that the Panchayat cannot seek retention of a Secretary, relying on the decision of this Court in Poruthissery Grama Panchayat v. Director of Panchayats [2000 (2) KLT 776]. I have gone through that decision. That decision reads as follows: “This Original Petition has been filed by the Panchayat impugning the transfer of its Secretary. It is contended by the Panchayat that the Panchayat has passed a resolution to retain the services of the Secretary. Ext.P1 is the resolution. Contrary to the resolution, Government transferred the Secretary. The basis of the contention raised by the petitioner Panchayat is sub-s W.P.(C)No.38612/10 2 (4) of S.179 which reads as under: 'The Government or any authority authorised by the Government may, at any time, transfer Secretary from a Panchayat and shall do so if such transfer recommended by a resolution of the Panchayat passed at a special meeting called for the purpose and supported by a simple majority of votes of the allowed strength of the Panchayat'. This provision makes it clear that the Government has power to transfer Secretary from one Panchayat to another. There is no fetter on that power. Second part of the section makes it clear that it is obligatory to the Government to transfer a Secretary, if the Panchayat requests for that. That does not enable a Panchayat to pass a resolution that a particular Secretary shall be posted to that Panchayat and a particular Secretary shall be retained to that Panchayat. That is why the second part of the section makes it clear that “if such transfer is recommended by a resolution of the Panchayat”. So, the power of the Panchayat is only to request the Government to take away the services of an unwanted Secretary and it cannot seek retention of its blue eyed boy as its Secretary. Therefore, the O.P. fails. No costs.” The ratio of that decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, following that judgment I hold that the Panchayat cannot challenge Ext.P4 order, by which the second respondent was transferred by the Government to another Panchayat. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. In this connection I note that the Secretary himself has filed another writ petition before this Court. Insofar as this writ petition is dismissed only on the ground of locus standi of the Grama W.P.(C)No.38612/10 3 Panchayat, I make it clear that dismissal of this writ petition would not in any way affect the rights of the second respondent in the writ petition filed by him. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.38612/10 4 W.P.(C)No.38612/10 5