R.Sasidharakurup v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2015/2ND ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 14819 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:
-----------
1. R.SASIDHARAKURUP KOVILAKAM, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O, MAVELIKARA
2. JAYAPRAKASH VISHNU BHAVANAM, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O, MAVELIKKARA
3. PRAKASH KUMAR MANGATTU HOUSE, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O, MAVELIKARA BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS:
-----------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA 688 001
3. MAVELIKARA BLOCK PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE OF BLOCK PANCHAYATH, MAVELIKARA 690 101
4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,MAVELIKARA 690 101
5. THEKKEKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY THEKKEKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MAVELIKKARA 690 101
6. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, ALAPPUZHA 688 001
7. PARAMESWARAN NAIR VELIYIL VADAKKATHIL, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O MAVELIKKARA 690 107 SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTAHTIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RKC
WP(C).No. 14819 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS --------------------- EXHIBITP1 A TRUE COPY OF G.
P.V.ASHA, J.
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2015
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioners, who are residents of Pallarimangalam Mavelikkara-Thekkekkara Grama Panchayat is over the delay in completion of the repair and maintenance work of Thekkekara Pallarimangalam Karayogam Mukku-Kollakkal Mukku Road.
2. In the year 2005, the Government had, as per Ext.P1 Government order - G.O(Rt) No.4986/2005/RD dated 24.8.2005, sanctioned a sum of 2,00,000/- for repair and restoration of ₹ Thekkekara Pallarimangalam Karayogam Mukku-Kollakkal Mukku Road under the scheme 'Natural Calamity Flood Relief Work'. By Ext.P2 proceedings dated 22.10.2005, administrative sanction was accorded for execution of the work, which was followed by Ext.P3 technical sanction. For execution of the work a beneficiary committee under the convenorship of 7th respondent was constituted and they entered into Ext.P5 agreement on 26.12.2005, for completion of the work within a stipulated
:2:
period. By Ext.P6, the time for completion of work was extended up to 15.6.2007.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the beneficiary committee as well as the convener stopped the work half way and the repair work of the road was never completed. The residents of the locality had approached the Panchayat as well as various authorities including the Human Rights Commission to get the road repaired on account of the difficulties faced by them. But no positive action was taken. It is also stated that the convener of the beneficiary committee did not turn up despite repeated requests to complete the work. It is also stated that even though another committee was appointed for completion of the balance work, nobody was willing to take up the work. As such the condition of the road became miserable, causing severe hardship and inconvenience to the public.
4. It was in this circumstance, the petitioners approached this Court praying for a direction to the Block Development Officer-the 4th respondent, to take appropriate action to see the works entrusted as per Ext.P1 is completed; for a direction to
:3:
respondents 3 and 4 to execute the repairing and restoring the work of the road in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Execution of Works) Rules after obtaining special sanction from the first respondent, if necessary and for a further direction to all the respondents to undertake repair and maintenance work of the road and complete the same.
5. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that non-completion of the work was on account of the irresponsibility of the beneficiary committee and none of the members of the beneficiary committee have turned up even after several notices were issued. The convener of the committee failed to complete the work as also to respond the notices issued to him directing to complete the work. It is stated that the members of the beneficiary committee had no unity to complete the work. It is further stated that the sanction for the work, which was under the specified scheme 'Natural Calamity Flood Relief Work' of 2005, has already lapsed and for continuing the work further sanction is required from the Government.
6. It is seen that the 7th respondent-the convener of
:4:
beneficiary committee has undertaken only a partial work worth Rs.1,01,051/- as against the administrative sanction for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under the special scheme initiated in the year 2005. Now the grievance of the residents of the locality is on account of the pathetic condition of the road. 7.
It is for the 5th respondent Grama Panchayat to see that the roads under it are maintained properly and to enable the residents to have their right to have proper and adequate facilities for transportation and for that purpose to undertake work of repair and restoration of the road. Just because the road was under repair on the basis of the funds under separate schemes sanctioned by the Government, nothing prevents the Panchayat from exercising its statutory duties by undertaking the work of repair of the road under it as and when required. Therefore notwithstanding the fact that the repair work was completed half way by the beneficiary committee under Ext.P1 scheme, the Panchayat should have undertaken the repair work under its own fund.
Therefore there shall be a direction to the 5th respondent to
:5:
undertake the work of repair and restoration of the Thekkekara Pallarimangalam Karayogam Mukku-Kollakkal Mukku Road as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
rkc