AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—In these two writ petitions, the issue is regarding formation of Headquarters of Pandalam Block Panchayath after amalgamation of two Block Panchayaths. Pandalam and Kulanada were separate Block Panchayaths.
By Exhibit P1 produced in W.P.(C) No. 22415/2010, the Government notified the proposal to form Pandalam Block Panchayath by including six Panchayaths namely, Pandalam Thekkekara, Pandalam, Thumpamon, Kulanada, Aranmula and Mezhuveli with Headquarters at Pandalam. Previously, Pandalam Block Panchayath was having as its constituents Pandalam Thekkekara, Pandalam and Thumpamon.
Pursuant to the notification, the respective Panchayaths and Block Panchayaths have forwarded their suggestions and objections also in the matter. We are only concerned with the change of Headquarters as proposed from the draft proposal. Going by the final notification Exhibit P6 (produced in W.P.(C) No. 22415/2010), the Government has fixed Kulanada as the Headquarters of the new Block Panchayath.
In W.P.(C) No. 19662/2010, the challenge is against the draft proposal itself and the petitioner''s demand is to retain Kulanada as the Headquarters.
Both parties have raised various contentions in the writ petitions. They have pointed out various infrastructural facilities, transportation facilities, availability of required space for housing Headquarters etc. in both stations. It is pointed out by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 22415/2010 that there is violation of Section 4(2) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. Going by Section 4(2) of the Act, a final notification can be issued only after previous publication of the proposal and consultation with the respective Panchayaths.
Herein, we are only concerned with the alteration of Headquarters as provided in Sub-rule (c) of Section 4(2) of the Act. But, even for alteration of the Headquarters of a Panchayath, there should be a previous publication of the proposal and consultation. There cannot be any dispute that the provisions of Section 4(2) are mandatory. In W.P.(C) No. 24967/2010, this question was considered by this Court elaborately. In fact, a learned Judge of this Court has considered the matter in Anil Kumar Vs. State of Kerala, . It was held in paragraph 6 that "Section 4(2)(b) of the Act provides, inter alia, that the Government may, after consultation with the Panchayat and after previous publication of the proposal by notification, diminish the area of any Village Panchayat by excluding from such Panchayat area, village or group of villages". Finally, in paragraph 7, it was held as follows:
...The use of the conjunction ''and'' in Section 4(2) of the Act, makes it abundantly clear that consultation with the Panchayat and previous publication of the proposal are necessary before a decision to diminish the area of a Panchayat is taken by the Government, on its proposal.
Herein, the position is identical as the said provision is applicable as far as the alteration of Headquarters is also concerned. It can be seen herein that the proposal by the Government was to have Pandalam as the Headquarters of the new Block Panchayath. There was no proposal to have Kulanada as the Headquarters.
In W.P.(C) No. 19662/2010, the petitioner has produced Exhibit P2, a report made by the Assistant Development Commissioner, Pathanamthitta to the Commissioner for Rural Development dated 17.04.2009 wherein with regard to the amalgamation of Kulanada Block Panchayath and Pandalam Block Panchayath, it was suggested that Kulanada will be a better choice as Headquarters for the amalgamated block. Apparently, final notification tallies with the above. But, still the same is without any proposal. In that view of the matter, the final notification namely, Exhibit P6 will have to go.
Both parties have raised various contentions with regard to the fixation of the place Kulanada and Pandalam as Headquarters. I am not considering those aspects and it is upto the Government to consider the same.
Therefore, W.P.(C) No. 22415/2010 is allowed and Exhibit P6 is quashed. W.P.(C) No. 19662/2010 is also disposed of in the light of the above. This will not stand in the way of the Government initiating any fresh proposal for fixing the Headquarters of the newly formed Pandalam Block Panchayath in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act.