The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. Ramachandran, J.:— The above three Original Petitions were heard together, as the issue concerns the justifiability or otherwise of the proceedings of the Thennala Grama Panchayat in the matter of reconstruction of a beneficiary committee and the further proceedings that had arisen therefrom.

2. O.P No. 1831 of 2000 had been filed by Sri. C. Moosa. He states that he belongs to Thennala Grama Panchayat and on 17.11.1999 the Ward Member of the Panchayat had in her Chairmanship convened a meeting of the beneficiary committee for finalising the plan relating to a road in the said ward. The said meeting elected a committee and the petitioner was its Chairman. One Mohammed Baputty was elected as the Convener. But, it was submitted that without the knowledge of the petitioner it came to be known that in the meeting held by the Panchayat on 29.11.1999 and by Resolution No. 6(A) a new beneficiary committee was authorised to be brought. Pursuant thereto, by another notice, the Ward Member convened a meeting on 7.12.1999 and another person was elected as the Chairman in his place and the work of construction of the road was entrusted to the newly elected committee. Against the conduct of the Panchayat the petitioner and a few others had made representations to the authorities and as there was total inaction the Original Petition was caused to be filed. A beneficiary committee becomes relevant, as its formation has a basis under R. 13 of the Rules published as SRO 256/97. The underlying reasons for entrusting certain works to the committee was the circumstance that such a committee would have active interest in the works, since it directly benefitted the members residing in the ward.

3. It is during the pendency of that O.P the other two Original Petitions (O.P Nos. 4249 & 5513 of 2000) also happened to be filed. The committee which had been reconstituted was permitted to enter into a contract with the Panchayat and the Panchayat had allotted funds and the constructions were being carried on. But the petitioner in the earlier O.P and a few others had interfered in the work and were causing obstructions. In fact O.P No. 4249 of 2000 had been filed by the Convener of the beneficiary committee for police protection. The third O.P happened to be filed in view of the circumstance that consequent to the representation filed by the petitioner in O.P No. 1831/2000, the Government had thought it fit to cancel the proceedings of the reconstitution of the beneficiary committee. By order dated 28.1.2000, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P9in O.P No.5513/2000, the Government had held that when a beneficiary committee had been formed on 7.11.1999 the steps at the instance of the Panchayat for removing the Chairman and appointment of another person as Chairman was illegal and therefore it was necessary that the first beneficiary committee should be retained and they are to be permitted to carry on the work of construction of the road.

4. Because of the above order passed, the prayer in O.P No. 1831/2000 has become irrelevant, as the reliefs sought for has been granted. The second O.P (O.P No. 4249/2000) filed for police protection also has become infructuous because of the efflux of time. Therefore, O.P No. 5513/2000 alone remain to be adjudicated.

5. The petitioner in O.P No. 5513/2000 is Sri. Ahammedkutty. He is the Convener who had been elected consequent to the meeting that had been held by the ward member on 7.12.1999 The first submission is that Ext. P9 was altogether illegal as it proceeded in total violation of the principles of natural justice. It is stated by Sri. P.N Ravindran, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the ward member, who was the authorised person to hold the beneficiary committee meeting, had been given authority by the Panchayat by a resolution dated 29.11.1999 to hold a beneficiary committee meeting and there was no proceedings whereunder such resolution stood rescinded. After the beneficiary committee was formed, they entered into a formal agreement with the Panchayat, as had been envisaged by the rules and guidelines, and substantial part of the work had been executed. But ignoring the above, the Government, by issuing Ext. P9, has directed to reinstate the previous beneficiary committee. The effect of the decision will be that the agreement that had been entered between the Panchayat and the beneficiary committee and the work carried out will have to be ignored, leading to legal consequences. The further submission of the counsel was that even if the Government had such an intention to cancel the constitution of the committee it could have been done only after hearing the parties who were interested in the very outcome of such decision as it had been brought to the notice of the Government that such a committee was in fact in existence. There has been violation of principles of natural justice, it is submitted. Decision taken on 29.11.1999 is valid, according to him, and also justified. This is because the Chairman, who had been originally elected was found to be non-co-operative. The first meeting of the committee was held on 28.11.1999 after its constitution. But the Chairman had not even turned up. The Convener of the Committee, thereupon had made a submission that he had no. assistance or co-operation from the Chairman and he would opt to resign. A copy of the submission made by the Convener, who had been elected by the first meeting, to the Panchayat is produced as Ext. P6 in O.P No. 5513/2000. The work had to be carried out within a time bound manner and the lethargy from the Chairman was found to be real. This was reason for the Panchayat to suggest a reconstitution of the committee. It had also been pointed out that the officers of the first committee had failed to take follow up action. A bank account had to be opened in a Co-operative Bank and minutes has to be maintained. Thereafter an agreement has to be entered into between the Panchayat and the Committee. Nothing in these lines had been done, and the second committee had promptly carried out all the formalities envisaged under the Rules and had become functional. The Chairman and Convener were at logger heads, and they could not have gone together any more. By Ext. P9, when the status quo anti was sought to be brought about, according to the petitioner, the Government had lost sight of the impractical nature of the order.

6. The counsel also referred to my attention to rules governing the subject. The governing rules, according to the counsel, is Kerala Panchayat Raj (Public Works) Rules, 1997. Such rules did not at all provide that a committee which had been formed was not liable to be changed. In this case, it was found that the original committee was inefficient and unworkable, the Panchayat in its discretion, had decided to convene a fresh meeting for selection a fresh beneficiary committee. He had concluded by stating that in these matters, the Government had no reserve powers to issue directions to the Panchayat as had been done by Ext. P9.

7. Sri. Biju Kuriakose, counsel for the Panchayat, also supported the contentions of the petitioner. There was nothing illogical in changing a committee, and especially, the first committee had not become functional. A mere election did not confer any rights on the Chairman to continue in office uncharged, and the petitions filed before the Government was therefore unwarranted. He also submitted that the resolutions of the Panchayat continued to hold good, and Ext. P9 was likely to lead to administrative bottle-necks.

8. Sri. Asok M. Cherian, appearing for the erstwhile Chairman, however took a stand that by election, he was entitled to continue as Chairman, and the unceremonious manner in which he was unseated was due to political reasons, and to tarnish his public image. He also accused the new committee that they had intention to give over the work to benamis and as this was found inconvenient, he had been removed in violation of fair play.

9. On an examination of the entire matters, I find that there was nothing more than a personality clash in the matter. The Chairman, who had been originally elected, had on a latter occasion found that his image might have suffered because of a change in the constitution of the committee. The matter had been taken up with the Government, in the above circumstance. But the prime requirement of personal hearing of the affected parties had not been afforded by the Government. Ext. P9 causes civil consequences. The works that had been carried out and the agreement that had been entered into, had been totally ignored. The beneficiary committee which was newly constituted had actively involved in the work and as Ext. P9 was likely to create hurdles in the efficient functioning of the project, I am of opinion that Ext. P9 was uncalled for and unjustified. In the above circumstances, I quash Ext. P9 order.

10. An examination of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Public Works) Rules shows that the Government was not justified in making interference in the matter. Power is sought to be invoked under S. 191 of the Panchayat Raj Act. It has not been shown that any of the four preconditions for rescinding the resolution or decision are existing in the instant case. It was an exercise of power, totally unwarranted. In fact, it would appear that the Chairman of a beneficiary committee is only a figure head, and Convener is the person who has to represent the committee in every matters. Under R. 2, a ward member is competent to call for a meeting and constitute a committee, and it becomes functional only after entering into a contract. The guidelines, produced as Ext. P7 in the O.P show that by the election as such,, it does not become repository of any power. The Government apparently has equated it with a Standing Committee. An elected standing committee statutorily holds office during the entire tenure of the Panchayat Committee. But this is not at all the case here. Ext. P9 had the effect of upsetting the smooth functioning of a committee and the Government was not justified in issuing the order, without a mature consideration of all relevant aspects. I hold that the beneficiary committee that had been reconstituted under the Chairmanship of the petitioner in O.P No. 5513/2000 is valid and operative and is entitled to carry out rest of the works as per the agreement that had been executed with the Panchayat. The Panchayat will co-operate with the Committee to get the work completed as early as is possible.

11. O.P Nos. 1831 and 4249 of 2000 are dismissed as infructuous. O.P No. 5513/2000 is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.