IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22642 of 2010(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SAVITHRI BHADRAN,AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.BHADRAN,MODIYIL,ELAVUMTHITTA.P.O,THUMBAMON NORTH,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA SMT.MANJU R.KARTHA SMT.R.B.SIMI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. KULANADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KULANADA.P.O, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689503. 5. THE SECRETARY,KULANADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH KULANADA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.22642 of 2010 E ------------------------------------------ DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JULY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was the President of the 4th respondent- Panchayat for the period 23.12.2003 to 30.9.2005. The Panchayat had at that point of time undertaken a project to provide day care facility to aged people in 2004-05. The benefit was intended for extending proper care and protection to senior citizens belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community. The proposal included construction of a building in Ward No.4 of the Panchayat and the Committee had approved the project and obtained technical sanction from the Kulanada Block Level Technical Committee and the Pathanamthitta District Planning Committee. 2. The Panchayat thereafter spent an amount of Rs.57,016/- for the construction of the boundary wall, for levelling the ground and for laying the foundation. There was objection by the Sub Engineer of the Electrical Section that statutory clearances from the 11 KV line is not there and by Exhibit P1 a communication was issued to stop the work. W.P.(C)No.22642/10 -2- Accordingly, the work was stopped by the Panchayat. 3. The petitioner's grievance herein is that in the audit report an objection has been raised against the spending of the amount and the petitioner is asked to remit an amount of Rs.19,005/-, being 1/3rd of the amount quantified in the Audit Report. This was replied to by the petitioner as per Exhibit P2 and later the petitioner filed Exhibits P4 and P5 representations before respondents 3 and 1 to withdraw the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that subsequent Committees of the Panchayat did not take any steps to complete the project and that will not automatically lead to any recovery from the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner is no longer connected with any of the affairs of the Panchayat also. It is pointed out that the amount was spent after obtaining proper sanction also. 5. Since Exhibit P5 representation is pending before the Government, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P5 after hearing the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 within a period of six months W.P.(C)No.22642/10 -3- from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then action for recovery against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance by the Panchayat. The petitioner will produce a copy of the Writ Petition along with a copy of the judgment for compliance, before the said respondents. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn