AHAMED KUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above three Original Petitions were heard together, as the issue concerns the justifiability or otherwise of the proceedings of the Thennala Grama Panchayat in the matter of reconstruction of a beneficiary committee and the further proceedings that had arisen therefrom.

(2.) O. P. No. 1831 of 2000 had been filed by Sri. C. Moosa. He states that he belongs to Thennala Grama Panchayat and on 17.11.1999 the Ward Member of the Panchayat had in her Chairmanship convened a meeting of the beneficiary committee for finalising the plan relating to a road in the said ward. The said meeting elected a committee and the petitioner was its Chairman. One Mohammed Baputty was elected as the Convener. But, it was submitted that without the knowledge of the petitioner it came to be known that in the meeting held by the Panchayat on 29.11.1999 and by Resolution No. 6(A) a new beneficiary committee was authorised to be brought. Pursuant thereto, by another notice, the Ward Member convened a meeting on 7.12.1999 and another person was elected as the Chairman in his place and the work of construction of the road was entrusted to the newly elected committee. Against the conduct of the Panchayat the petitioner and a few others had made representations to the authorities and as there was total inaction the Original Petition was caused to be filed.

(3.) A beneficiary committee becomes relevant, as its formation has a basis under R.13 of the Rules published as SRO 256/97. The underlying reasons for entrusting certain works to the committee was the circumstance that such a committee would have active interest in the works, since it directly benefited the members residing in the ward.