R.K.SOMASEKHARAN Vs. RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: The petitioner is a senior citizen and a physician is doing a noble cause by taking the stray dogs as well as the abandoned dogs to his home and raising it in the shelter home provided by the petitioner. The petitioner is spending huge amount in looking after the stray dogs by giving it a bath daily, providing food and giving vaccines to the dogs regularly. The acts of the petitioner have considerably reduced the instance of dog bites and its menance to the people of the locality. Though the petitioner had filed an application for licence for keeping the dogs, it was rejected stating that it is not in proper proforma. Hence W.P. (C).No.6939/2020 was filed before this Court and Exhibit P2 judgment obtained to consider the application to be submitted by the petitioner. Though Exhibit P3 application was submitted, it was rejected as per Exhibit P5 order stating that the application is not properly filed up. Rejection of Exhibit P3 application is not proper. Opportunity ought to have been given by the respondent to the petitioner to fill up the necessary details. The rejection of the application on the very next day itself shows that the Exhibit P5 order was passed with a predertermined mind and that too without conducting any enquiry or inspection. The reports mentioned in Exhibit P5 is prepared by the even before the Exhibit P3 application is submitted by the petitioner. The contention taken by the respondent in Exhibit P5 that the unauthorized constructions are directed to be demolished is stayed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions as per Exhibit P6 order. Moreover, if the respondent Panchayath was of the opinion that more details are required from the petitioner, the respondent could have intimated the same to the petitioner and granted an opportunity than to reject it. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers :

(2.) Heard K.Rajesh Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit on the basis of instructions from his party that the petitioner will immediately file statutory appeal under Section 276(1) before the Panchayath Committee of the respondent-Rayamangalam Grama Panchayath to challenge Ext.P5 order dated 24.06.2020 issued by the Secretary of the respondent-Grama Panchayath, rejecting the plea of the petitioner contained in Ext.P3 application dated 23.06.2020 for grant of licence to keep dogs etc., and further that petitioner could also move a stay application before the President of the Panchayath in the said appeal as conceived in 276(2) of the Kerala Panchayath Raja Act, and that this Court may direct the Panchayath Committee and the President respectively, to consider and dispose of the said appeal and the stay application in accordance with Section 276(1) and 276(2) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and that until then this Court may direct that the operation of the enforcement of the impugned Ext.P5 order will be kept in abeyance.

(3.) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is for the petitioner to seek statutory appellate remedy in terms of Section 276(1) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. If has any grievances in relation to Ext.P5 rejection order issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath, statutory appellate remedy before the Panchayath Committee in case he has any grievance in respect of Ext.P5 rejection order, and it is also open to the petitioner to file stay application in the said appeal. On filing of such appeal and stay application, the Secretary of Grama Panchayath will ensure that the stay application is immediately placed before the President of the Panchayath as conceived in Section 276(2) of the Act, so that orders are passed to the said stay application, without much delay. Further in the interest of justice it is ordered that the status quo as on today be maintained for a period of ten days from today. However, it is made clear that the last directions had been issued only to ensure the preservation and subject matter of this and shall not be construed as an expressional opinion on the part of this Court regarding the merits of the controversy which would fall within the domain of the appellate authority and which would fall within the domain of the above said statutory authority in terms of Section 276 of the Act. Petitioner will serve a copy of the memorandum of this W.P.(C) to Sri. K.J.Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader, who is requested to ensure that the above said directions are conveyed by the laison officials of the Panchayath Department attached to the offices to the respondent Rayamangalam Panchayath Authorities today itself telephonically.