IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19969 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, KANIYAMPATTA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KANIYAMPATTA PO, WAYANAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SMT.MERIL MUTHU P.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KUNJAMMAD, S/O.ABDHULLA, KARIMTHODY VEEDU, PACHILAKAD, KARIYAMPATTA PO, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD DIST. 2. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTO, POVERTY ALLEVIATION UNIT, WAYANAD,(FORMERLY DIST.RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY), KALPETTA, NORTH WAYANAD- 673 122. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER I V PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 19969 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, Secretary of a Grama Panchayat challenges the decision of the Ombudsman requiring him to take action for release of outstandings to the first respondent, who carried out the work under a scheme, for which the third respondent was the Project Director. In terms of that order, the petitioner, as the Secretary, is likely to be visited with further personal action in terms of law. This is why this writ petition was entertained. The plea projected by the petitioner is that the amounts have to come from the third respondent. 2. The learned Government Pleader, with the aid of the statement of the third respondent on board submits that the Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yogana(SGRY) under which the work was done, even if it is a special order work, has virtually come to a standstill by the government stopping the release of food grains etc. To manage such situation, the Government decided to constitute a committee to look into the issue where the work Wpc 19969/2009 2 have been appropriately carried out. That Vigilance Committee is stated to have cleared the project done by the first respondent as a bonafide completion of work. This means that the first respondent is entitled to payment. The learned Government Pleader in contra-distinction to Ext.P4, relied on by the Government states that on the strength of Ext.R3(a), the panchayat and its Secretary, the petitioner, can make the payment from out of the plan fund in lieu of payments to be released by the third respondent. If there is any further confusion regarding the appropriation in the matter of accounting, it is for the petitioner to get it clarified from the Local Self Government Department of the Government. Under such circumstances, this writ petition is ordered directing that if the petitioner ensures that amounts are released in terms of Ext.R3(a), within a period of two months from now, the impugned order of the learned Ombudsman would be treated as satisfied. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/14/8 Wpc 19969/2009 3