MOIDUTTY MASTER Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the ward member of Ward No.IV of Nellaya Grama Panchayat. This writ petition is filed, seeking a direction to quash Ext.P3, which is the beneficiary list prepared for giving financial assistance, under the 12th Five Year plan for the construction/repair of houses for the financial year 2014 -15. According to the petitioner, for preparing the beneficiary list of each Ward, comprehensive guidelines are issued by the Government. But, the petitioner being the member of a ward No.IV, made request to prepare the list in compliance with the guidelines formulated by the

(2.) nd respondent did not prepare the Government. The beneficiary list, in adherence to the guidelines issued by the Government, and therefore, the same could not be placed for the Grama Sabha for approval. This is the case of all the Wards under the Nellaya Grama Panchayat. But, to the surprise of the petitioner, on 09.03.2015, the ordinary meeting of the Panchayat Committee decided to approve the beneficiary list of 18 Wards, excluding the petitioner's Ward. Thus, the entire process of the preparation of the beneficiary list is faulty, resulting miscarriage of justice. It is with this circumstance, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the prayers referred above. 2. The 2ndrespondent filed a counter affidavit, stating that the Panchayath has no role to play in the preparation of beneficiary list, which is prepared by the working group. Only the grama sabha has the power to make any modification in the list prepared by the working group. The petitioner, who is the member of Ward No.IV was totally non -co - operative from the very beginning and refused to convene the grama sabha to prepare the list of beneficiaries. Despite repeated opportunities given to the petitioner, he refused to convene the grama sabha, so as to forward the list of beneficiaries. In accordance with the project, financial assistance is extended to 39 families, for construction of houses and for 98 families for repair works. When this is divided among 19 Wards, three beneficiaries for house construction and eight beneficiaries for repair and maintenance could get assistance. Since the petitioner has not co -operated with the preparation of beneficiary list, the Panchayath with abundant caution has kept apart the necessary funds, to give assistance to three beneficiaries for new construction and eight beneficiaries for maintenance work for the petitioner's Ward. According to the Panchayath, the Panchayath has taken all precaution to ensure that eligible persons in Ward No.IV are not the sufferers due to the recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner. It is also submitted that there is no procedural irregularity, in preparing the list of beneficiaries.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.