SOUMYA SANTHOSH ABHINAVA NIVAS Vs. PANDALAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the elected representative of Ward No.1 of Pandalam Municipality which is reserved for SC/ST community. The petitioner belongs to SC Community. One of the residents of the Ward which she represents, gave complaint to the petitioner alleging that an Anjili tree on the side of a public road is standing in a dangerous condition and is causing danger to his house also. The complainant was of advanced age suffering from physical ailments and not in a position to go over to the Municipality to lodge a complaint. In the above circumstances, the complaint was lodged through the petitioner. Ext.P1 is the complaint. The petitioner submitted the complaint before the 2nd respondent on 3/7/2021 for necessary action. Thereafter, the petitioner received Ext.P2 notice dtd. 24/7/2021 wherein it is stated that the complaint submitted by her is baseless and the petitioner should remit a sum of Rs.9,100.00 which was expended by the Municipality for the purpose of enquiring into the complaint under Sec. 558 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is also stated that the petitioner has to show cause as to why the said amount shall not be realised from her under Sec. 538 of the Act. Thereafter, on 10/9/2021, the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P3 order whereby the petitioner has been directed to remit an amount of Rs.9,100.00, failing which the Municipality will be taking action under Sec. 538 of the Act. The reasoning in Ext.P3 is that by submitting a baseless complaint, the petitioner has caused unnecessary expenses to the Municipality, which is a loss from the Municipal fund. Several judgments have been stated in the order on the question of the effect of Article 14 and Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that submitting baseless complaints does not come within the duties of a Municipal Councillor as envisaged in Sec. 31A of the Act. Exts.P2 and P3 have been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Subhash Chand, learned counsel appearing for the Municipality.

(3.) The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has only perfomed his responsibilities as an elected representative and Panchayat cannot impose cost on such actions. The learned counsel for the Municipality vehemently argued that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Sec. 509(1) of the Act. It is further submitted that the complaint filed by the petitioner was baseless and not within the duties of the Councillor. Along with the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent has produced Ext.R1(a) dtd. 3/5/2021 wherein she has brought to the notice of the Secretary of the Municipality that a tree was standing in a dangerous condition. The Municipality has also produced Ext.R1(b), the reply submitted by the petitioner to Ext.P2 wherein she has stated that she has only brought to the notice of the Municipality, the apprehension of some persons, which she is bound to do as an elected representative. Ss. 538 and 558 of the Act read as follows;