The petitioner herein is the Okkal Grama Panchayat. The said panchayat has been formed by bifurcation of a larger panchayat by name Koovappadi Grama Panchayat. Upon bifurcation, the earlier panchayat got divided into the petitioner as well as the third respondent. For the purpose of completing the bifurcation purposes, the assets as well as the liabilities of the erstwhile panchayat had to be divided. The assessment of the assets and liabilities revealed that the liabilities far exceeded the assets. As per Ext.P3 order the Director of Panchayats directed both the panchayats to share the liabilities and assets in the ratio of 3:2. The petitioner Panchayat challenged Ext.P3 before the first respondent by filing an appeal. The first respondent passed Ext.P5 order exempting the petitioner Panchayat from the liability to pay the River Mangement Fund and Royalty dues, on the ground that the said liability was incurred by the erstwhile Koovappady Grama Panchayat. 2. The said order was challenged by the third respondent before this Court in O.P.38569/2001. As per Ext.P6 judgment, the order of the first respondent Ext.P5 was quashed for the reason that, the said order was passed without issuing notice to or hearing the third respondent. The matter was directed to be considered afresh. Accordingly, Ext.P7 order has been passed. By Ext.P7, the petitioner as well as the third respondent are directed to share both the assets and liabilities as in Ext.P3. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7.
3. According to Shri. Philip J.Vettickattu who appears for the petitioner, by Ext.P4, the Joint Director of Panchayats had recommended that the major portion of the amount shown as liability represented dues payable to the Government. In the present financial condition of the panchayats, they are not in a position to shoulder the liability. Therefore, it has been found that the only solution is for the Government to write off the said liability. However, the said aspect has not been considered in Ext.P7. Ext.P4 has not even been referred to by the first respondent, it is pointed out. In order to work out a satisfactory solution to the problem, according to the counsel, it is only appropriate that the Government considers the above aspect also.
4. Adv. Koshy George appears for the third respondent Panchayat. According to the counsel, Ext.P5 was set aside for the reason that the said order was passed without even hearing the third respondent. The third respondent is also not possessed of funds sufficient to absorb the liability. Therefore, some solution would have to be worked out by the first respondent. I have heard the Govt. Pleader also.
5. In the facts and circumstances referred to above, I am of opinion that, it is for the first respondent to consider the above aspect of the matter and to take a decision whether some accommodation should be given to the petitioner as well as the third respondent in the matter of shouldering the liabilities which represent the dues payable to the Government. The dues represent the royalty that is payable in respect of sand mined by the erstwhile Koovappady Grama Panchayat. Though Ext.P4 report of the Joint Director was before the first respondent, the same has not been referred to or considered while considering Ext.P7.
In view of the above, the first respondent is directed to consider the recommendations of the Joint Director of Panchayats contained in Ext.P4 and to take a decision as to whether to what extent the liabilities imposed on the petitioner and the third respondent could be written off by the first respondent so as to provide some relief to the newly formed Panchayats on bifurcation of the erstwhile larger panchayat. The matter shall be considered with notice to both the petitioner as well as the third respondent and a decision shall be taken in the matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge