E. PARASUPILLAI Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 14.03.2013 and consequential direction to the respondent to issue work order reserved by the proceedings of the respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.A5/2297/2012, dated 12.09.2012.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a disabled person having 50% disability and a member of the BPL family. According to him, it was approved by the Block Development Officer, as he being an eligible candidate for allotment of a house in his name under the "The Chief Minister's Solar Powered Green House Scheme (CMSPGHS) 2012, as per G.O. Ms.No.46, dated 17.08.2011. Though he applied in time and was eligible he has not been allotted. Therefore, originally he made a complaint to the Chief Minister's Cell and even though he received a reply stating that his name would be considered for allotment of a house in the coming year, his name was not considered. Therefore, earlier he filed a revision petition that was not taken up and hence he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 6198 of 2012. In that Writ Petition an interim order was passed reserving one house for him and ultimately, the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to consider and dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner. But, according to him, in view of the interim order one house was reserved and not allotted to anybody. Thereafter, in the revision an order was passed on 14.03.203 rejecting his application for allotment of a house. Thereafter, he filed a review application and the review application was also rejected. According to him, the review application was rejected on a flimsy grounds including one stating that he has not even applied. If he had not even applied, they would not have even passed the order in the revision petition. According to him, they have rejected the review application on the ground that he is not Below Poverty Line member and the BPL number is given only to his mother's name. Only one BBL number is given to a family. Therefore, he is entitled to. Apart from that, he is also a physically handicapped person with more than 50% disability and one more ground taken by the authority is that he is working as a daily wager in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. But, according to the petitioner, he was working as a daily wager at the rate of Rs.100/ - per day that cannot a bar for him. Therefore, the rejection is also invalid and not in accordance with law and they have not considered his representation properly. In fact, he had applied for inclusion of his name under the scheme but the President wantonly and wilfully has not placed before the Grama Sabha and the petitioner has also pointed out very many irregularity in the grant of allotment to the members and that has not been considered and exclusively he has been rejected for pointing out the irregularities. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the very rejection order passed by the respondents.

(3.) HEARD all the parties. By consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for hearing.