Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANDRAN versus V. THE ELEVANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


CHANDRAN V. v. THE ELEVANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT - WP(C) No. 5853 of 2007(V) [2007] RD-KL 3841 (21 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 5853 of 2007(V)

1. CHANDRAN V.,
... Petitioner

2. R.SIVADASAN, MEMBER,

3. A.CHAMI, S/O. AYYAN,

4. GURUVAYOORAPPAN, S/O. MANI,

5. KANDAMUTHAN, S/O. KARUPPANDI,

Vs

1. THE ELEVANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
... Respondent

2. THE PRESIDENT,

3. SUMITRA, W/O. KRISHNANKUTTY,

4. PERUMAL, S/O. KRISHNAN,

5. MANIKANTAN, S/O. DORASWAMY,

6. VELAYUDHAN, S/O. RAMAN,

7. YOUSUF, S/O. ABDUL REHMAN,

8. SARASU, W/O. KANDAMUTHAN,

9. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT

10. CHINNACHAMI, S/O. PONNAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :21/02/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C) No.5853 OF 2007 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 21ST FEBRUARY, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Petitioners 1 and 2 are elected Members of Elevanchery Grama Panchayat in Palakkad District and their complaint is that there has been corruption in the matter of preparing the list of beneficiaries under various schemes under the 2006-07. I do not propose to examine the merits of the grounds raised. The 9th respondent in the Writ Petition is the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and I relegate the petitioners to their remedies before the 9th respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.K.Sajan Varghese submits that he has been specifically instructed by petitioners 1 and 2 who are Members of the Panchayat to say that the benefits have not been released to anybody and much less to respondents 3 to 8. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel, there will be a direction that in pursuance to Ext.P6, respondents 1 and 2 will not release payments to anybody for a period of three weeks from today. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

WP(C)N0.5853 of 2007 tgl


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.