D.S. PRASANTHKUMAR Vs. STANDING EMPOWERED COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this purported Public Interest Litigation is the Ward Member of Aryanad Grama Panchayat . The petitioner says that he is a social worker and Executive Committee Member of an Arts and Sports Club. His complaint is that a particular public road which has been covered by the Prime Minister's Gramin Sadak Yojana is not being appropriately constructed or renovated in terms of the contract given to the 5th respondent.

(2.) THE official respondents have filed a counter affidavit. That shows that the Disputes Resolution Committee has come to the conclusion that the work is not feasible because of shortage of land going by the width of the road as proposed. The contract was terminated and the 5th respondent was ordered to return the advance amounts given. He has filed a writ petition before this Court and has obtained an order of stay against the revenue recovery proceedings and that writ petition was pending.

(3.) IT would only be worthwhile for the petitioner who is a Member of the Grama Panchayat to take up the matter with the Grama Panchayat itself, so that the maintenance works could be expedited by the petitioner who is an elected representative at the grass root level, rather than prosecuting a litigation before this Court. We say this because, Public Interest Litigations are primarily intended to take up the needs of that sector, which can be treated as voiceless, in view of socio -economic challenges. But here, it is clear that the petitioner himself is an elected member of the local people. Being a Grama Panchayat Member, he will be the best spokes person for the local people in the Grama Panchayat itself.