PRADEEP PASCAL C Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT SECRETARAIT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are employees of the 3rd respondent-Grama Panchayat. Government of Kerala floated the Kerala Sports Super Bumper Lottery. All the Panchayats in the State were requested by the Government to sell tickets of the lottery. Each Panchayat was given 500 tickets for such sale. It appears that the intention of the Government was to collect the amount for 500 tickets from the Panchayat whether they sell it or not. According to the petitioners, in view of that contingency, the members of the Panchayat and the petitioners together purchased 30 tickets out of the same, each contributing their share. One of the tickets fetched the prize of Rs. 2 crores. THE 4th respondent convened a press conference and declared that the prize money would be used for developmental activities of the Panchayat. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent had no manner of right to say so and the Panchayat has no right to use the said prize money for the use of the Panchayat since the tickets belong to the persons who purchased the tickets by contributing their share for the tickets. But, in view of the stand of the Panchayat, the Government is not releasing the prize money. It is under the above circumstances the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 3 and 4 controverting the contentions of the petitioners. According to them, there was no intention to give the prize money to the individuals who contributed for the purchase of the tickets. They would contend that in a meeting of the Ongallur Grama Panchayat held on 9.2.2007, a resolution was adopted to take 30 tickets out of 436 tickets jointly by the staff and members of the Panchayat including the President, but the 30 tickets were not separated or identified. They were kept with the Secretary along with the 436 unsold tickets. The proceeds of the prize money, if won, was to be used for the developmental activities of the Panchayat. According to respondents 3 and 4, a resolution was adopted by the Panchayat, copy of which has been produced as Ext.R3(a). In view of the same, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition, is the contention of respondents 3 and 4.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to have the period during which this writ petition was pending before this Court excluded for the purpose of deciding the period of limitation. I am not expressing any opinion on that contention. It is for the petitioners to approach the civil court and obtain a decision in accordance with law on that question also.