PAYYANNUR PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Payyannur Panchayat, represented by its President. This is a Special Grade Panchayat comprising the Payyannur village which is a prosperous and fast growing trade centre for the hill produce of the neighbouring areas. There is a Government High School which is stated to be one of the largest in the State. There are 70 buses starting from Payyannur, and 60 taxi cars, vans etc. operate from there. It is stated that this Panchayat is soon likely to be declared a Municipality. There is a bus stand in Payyannur, but there is no taxi stand. There have been growing demands for a taxi stand. The taxis are at present parked in the street causing congestion and interruption in the free flow of traffic, as a result of which the public and the pedestrians in particular, are greatly inconvenienced.

(2.) As early as 1971 a resolution was adopted by the Panchayat to acquire land for the purpose of constructing a taxi stand. It is alleged that, owing to political pressure, this resolution could not be put into effect. On 28-4-1975 a resolution (Ext. P1) was adopted by a majority of 7 against 3 to acquire 50 cents of land in R. S. No. 65/8 belonging to the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to this resolution a letter was addressed by the Special Grade Executive Officer of the Panchayat to the District Panchayat Officer requesting for sanction of the site proposed. On 2-4-1975, much to the surprise of the petitioner, a letter (Ext. P4) was received by the Executive Officer from the District Panchayat Officer stating:

(3.) The petitioner's counsel contends that the District Panchayat Officer, the 2nd respondent, has abdicated his statutory function. The statute has conferred upon him the power to decide whether or not the site proposed to be acquired by the Panchayat is suitable for the purpose. This is a power which he must exercise by a proper application of his mind and he is not entitled to act at the bidding of the higher authorities. The petitioner has also alleged that the 3rd respondent had approached the Minister for Local Administration who happens to belong to a political party with which the 3rd respondent is affiliated. According to the petitioner, the Minister was influenced by the 3rd respondent, and consequently the Minister has acted mala fide in bringing pressure upon the concerned authorities. The Minister has filed an affidavit denying the allegations against him personally.