Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 217 (KAR)

G. E. THIPAIAH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2006-02-27

CYRIAC JOSEPH, K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2006
CYRIAC JOSEPH, C. J. ( 1 ) THERE are 20 petitioners in this Writ Petition. They are Coffeee Planters who have their estates adjacent to or along the road which passes from Chandagoodu Village to deseveinahaklu Village through Kerehakkalu village and thereafter to Kanchinakal Durga village in Chickmagalur Taluk, Chickmagalur district. The said road is used by several bus operators and other members of the public apart from the petitioners. The petitioners claim that they are not seeking any individual relief and that the Writ Petition is filed in public interest. It is alleged in the petition that the entire stretch of the above mentioned road measures about 8 kms. and it has not seen any kind of maintenance for the last several years. Though the petitioners made several representations to various authorities to bring to their notice the horrendous state of the road, no action was taken. The Zilla Panchayat informed the petitioners that it cannot do anything due to shortage of funds allotted by the state Government. The Zilla Panchayat has also taken the stand that the maintenance of the road is within the jurisdiction of the Grama panchayat concerned. The second respondent-Chickmagalur Zilla Panchayat also orally informed the petitioners that the entire works of maintenance and repairs had been handed over to the Kanataka Land Army Corporation Ltd. Though the petitioners issued a legal notice to the Kamataka land Army Corporation Ltd. , the said corporation sent a reply dated 24-4-2004 stating that the maintenance and repairs of the road had not been entrusted to them. In these circumstances, the petitioners pray for a direction to the respondents-authorities to perform their statutory duties and to repair and maintain the roads which pass through Chandagoodu Village through Karehaklu village and to Kanchinakal durga Village and the road from Aldur Forest Check Post through Donagudige, chindagodu, Guddadoor, Elekhane, katardahalli. Kandarakasiee Villages and hawalli Road to Mudigere Raod and further on till it joins near Poorna Pragna English school, situated in Chickmagalur Taluk and district and in particular all the other roads which fall in their purview in general with immediate effect. ( 2 ) A statement of objections has been filed by respondents 2, 3 and 4. Kandarakasiee Villages and hawalli Road to Mudigere Raod and further on till it joins near Poorna Pragna English school, situated in Chickmagalur Taluk and district and in particular all the other roads which fall in their purview in general with immediate effect. ( 2 ) A statement of objections has been filed by respondents 2, 3 and 4. The said respondents have admitted that the petitioners are coffee estate owners who have their Coffee estates adjacent to the road which passes from adlur Forest Check Post through Donagudige, chandagoodu, Guddadoor, Elekhan, katardahalli. Kanty rakasige and Hawalli Road to Mudigere Road where the said road joins near the Poorna Pragna English School. They have also admitted that the entire stretch of the road is 8 krns. and that it is used not only by the petitioners but also by the other members of the public. However, they have denied the allegation that the roads have not seen any kind of maintenance for the last several years. According to the respondents, they have spent about Rs. 9. 48 lakhs between 2000 and 2005 for the maintenance of Aldur, Guddadur, poorna Pragna English School Road which joins Handi Mudigere Road. It is stated that when the first petitioner approached the Zilla panchayat through the representation dated 20-3-2003 stating that the roads are not properly maintained, a reply was given by the member of the Zilla Panchayat on 24-3-2003 stating that the Panchayat has taken up several works and also appraising the petitioners that there was shortage of funds allotted by the State Government. It is also stated in the statement of objections that the condition of the roads is not bad as stated by the petitioners. It is further stated that for the maintenance and development of the roads, funds are distributed by the State Government to the elected representatives and that the respondents have requested the elected representatives to provide more funds for the maintenance of the roads so as to enable the respondents to carry out the maintenance of the roads in time. It is further stated that the Zilla panchayat will make a request for the State government for the development of the roads. It is further stated that the Zilla panchayat will make a request for the State government for the development of the roads. ( 3 ) IN view of the averments contained in the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents 2, 3 and 4, we are not in a position to hold that there was any failure on the part off those respondents in deciding their statutory duties. The said respondents might not have been successful in properly maintaining and repairing the roads as it ought to be, but the respondents have pointed out that they have done the works of maintenance and repairs with the funds available and they have requested for more funds from the elected representatives and the Government. In the absence of any failure on the part of the said respondents to discharge their statutory duties, there is no question of a writ of mandamus being issued to compel them to discharge their statutory duties. ( 4 ) IT is stated by the learned counsel for respondents 2, 3 and 4 that even though the other respondents have requested the Government for more funds, they have not received any further funds. Learned counsel also stated that the said respondents have requested the elected representatives like Member of Parliament and Member of legislative Assembly for providing funds. Learned counsel for the petitioners also admitted that they sent a representation to the Member of Parliament of the area and he sent a reply dated 29-11-2004 stating that he had recommended inclusion of the road in the NABARD Scheme. ( 5 ) NEITHER the Member of the Parliament nor the Member of the Legislature is a party to the Writ Petition and therefore, this Court cannot issue any direction to them regarding the providing of funds to the Panchayat for maintenance of the roads. Even otherwise, it is not for this Court to decide as to which roads or which bridges or which schools or which development work should be included in the scheme recommended by the Member of the legislature or the Member of the Parliament. It is for them to decide such matters. It is for the citizens to persuade or compel the Member of the Parliament or the Member of the legislative Assembly to utilise the funds properly and equitably and in a just manner for the development of the area coming within their jurisdiction. It is for them to decide such matters. It is for the citizens to persuade or compel the Member of the Parliament or the Member of the legislative Assembly to utilise the funds properly and equitably and in a just manner for the development of the area coming within their jurisdiction. In a democratic society, the citizen should be able to assert their rights.