By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The allegations made in the complaint is as follows:-
1) According to the complainant, the opposite parties did not provide services and rejected applications submitted by the complainant and not complied the government orders. The first opposite party was the president and the second opposite party was the secretary of Thavanur Grama Panchayat. It is contended in the complaint that the opposite parties invited quotation for supply of study table and chair and consequently two firms namely GST Agencies and Bidco Trading submitted their quotation before the opposite parties. According to the complainant there were no such firms existed and one Mr. Bava Sarfudheen colluded with opposite parties fraudulently managed to submit quotation for unlawful gain. The complainant filed a petition before the second opposite party to take necessary action. But the opposite parties did not turn up. The complainant also made complaint before the Grama Panchayath against the employees of the Grama Panchayath for not taking actions on application filed by the complainant and also questioned the irresponsible attitude of the employees . It is stated in the complaint filed before the commission that the complainant submitted an application before the second opposite party for getting a conduct certificate . But so for the opposite parties did not issue the certificate. According to the complainant there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and so the complainant approached this commission for the redressal of his grievance . Hence this complaint.
2) The commission admitted the complaint on file and issued notices to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared before the commission and filed version.
3) It is contended in the version of the first opposite party that complaint is not maintainable and denied allegation raised by the complainant. According to the first opposite party, they have never received quotation in the name of non existent firms. The first opposite party never accepted quotation from GST agencies. The first opposite party used to accept the quotation only after conducting scrutiny. According to the first opposite party the Grama Panchyath have accept quotation from BSGST Agencies and license of BSGST also produced by the party. It is submitted in the version that the complainant applied for conduct certificate and subsequently conducted enquiry. It was revealed that the complainant was used to pour ugly words on the employees of the grama panchayath and creating hurdles to discharge their duties. It is added that Panchayath Board discussed the application of the complainant for conduct certificate and 8 member did not favour for issuing conduct certificate. The only member who supported for issuing conduct certificate to the complainant is Mr. Aneesh. Most of the Grama Panchayat members opposed to issue conduct certificate on the ground that the complainant used to visit Grama Panchyat Office and creating nuisance to its employees.
4. According to the first opposite party, the complainant is continuously creating nuisance by filing applications under Right to Information Act before Tavanur village office and Ponnani Taluk office. The first opposite party also alleged that the complainant is making troubles to the employees of Grama Panchayath office, police station , sub registrar office, electricity office in Kuttipuram, Grama Panchayath office and village office in Kalady and sub registrar office in Edappal.
It is stated in the version that complainant also creating nuisance in Tiur Revenue Divisional office, Malappuram Collectrate office, Consumer Commission , Ombudsman for Local Self Government Department and sales Tax office. The complainant also filed many complaints before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Malappuram and also filed another case before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvanathapurm. The first opposite party denied the allegation that the Secretary of Grama Panchayat did not transferred the ownership of a sawmill. According to the first opposite party there is case pending before the Hon’ble Munciff Court Ponnani numbered as O.S 127/2021 between the complainant and his brother named Bava Sharafudheen . So the secretary of Grama Panchayat cannot change the ownership of the sawmill. So the opposite parties rejected the application for conduct certificate of the complainant .In the version first opposite party pleaded for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
5. The second opposite party also filed version and denied allegation put forwarded by the complainant. The second opposite party also stated that no relief can be granted on the basis of the complaint. This commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. According to the second opposite party the Tavanur Grama Panchayat is standing in front to provide services and complying government order among other Grama Panchayaths . It is stated by the opposite party that Tavanur Grama Panchayath got ISO certificate for public administration and services to the public. According to the second opposite party there is a family feud between the complainant and his brother Bava Sharafudheen and in connection with the rivalry between the brothers, the complainant approaches Grama Panchayath office and making applications for getting documents.The complainant made many unjustifiable and frivolous applications before the office of the opposite parties. But the second opposite party was used to make reply to each application without any failure, even though the complainant filed a number of baseless allegations and complaints before police station and other government departments against the opposite parties. According to the second opposite party there is no laches and deficiency of service on the part of the office of the second opposite party. The applications submitted by the complainant is used receive in the front office of Grama Panchayat and taking steps properly on every application. The opposite party also contended that no quotation received in the name of a non existent firms on 26/06/2018. The allegation of the complainant that the panchayat employees are behaving irresponsibly is not correct. The application was discussed in the panchayat committee on 31/06/2020 and decision was also taken on that application. The application for conduct certificate submitted by the complainant was decided by the President of the Grama Panchayat on 03/06/2020. On the basis of the decision of the president, the front office of grama panchayat received the application of the complainant and taken for consideration in the meeting of Grama Panchayat held on 08/06/2020. The decision of the meeting was reported to the complainant.
6) According to the second opposite party the employees of grama panchayath is very responsible persons in discharging their duties. The complaint is not coming under the Right to Service Act and he is continuously creating nuisance to the employees of the Grama Panchayath and wasting the working time of the office. The complainant was used to threaten the office staffs of the Grama Panchayath. The opposite party always provided service to the complainant and complied Government orders. The opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation to the complainant and the complainant has not right to claim the same. The complainant did not suffer any damages or financial loss and no negligence can be found on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties and staffs of the Grama Panchayath behaved very comfortably with the complainant. The allegation raised in complaint is vexatious and frivolous in nature and no cause of action arised for filing this complaint. The prayer in the complaint is against law and not sustainable. So the second opposite party also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
7) The complainant filed affidavit and produced documents. The documents on the side of the complainant are marked as Ext. A1 to A27. Ext. A1 document is the copy of the complaint filed by complainant before Tavanur Grama Panchayath committee . Ext. A2 document is the copy of document received from public Information officer Tavanur Grama Panchayath dated 23/06/2021. Ext. A3 document is the copy of letter dated 12/11/2018 sent by Deputy Director of Panchayath to the Secretary, Tavanur Grama Panchayath. Ext. A4 document is the copy of the complaint dated 22/01/2020 submitted by the complainant before Tavanur Grama Panchayath committee. Ext. A5 document is the copy of the receipt dated 22/01/2020 issued by Tavanur Grama Panchayath. Ext.A6 document is the copy of the application for conduct certificate submitted by the complainant before President, Tavanur Grama Panchayath. Ext. A7 document is the copy of receipt dated 03/06/2020 issued by Tavanur Grama Panchayath. Ext. A8 document is the copy of publication informing the public about the documents issued by president of Grama Panchayath. Ext. A9 document is the copy of certificate issued by the member of grama Panchayat ward No.9, Tavanur. Ext. A10 document is the copy of quotation submitted by GST Agencies. Ext. A11 document is the copy of FIS in crime No.241/2020 of Kuttipuram Police Station. Ext. A12 is document is the copy of notice dated 18/10/2020 issued by the Inspector of Police, Kuttipuram. Ext. A13 document is the copy of the statement given by the Secretary of Tavanur Grama Panchayath before the police. Ext. A14 document is the copy of the land tax receipt issued from Tavanur Village office. Ext. A15 is document is the copy of complaint made against village officer by the complainant. Ext. A16 document is the copy of warrant dated 17/01/2020 issued by Munsiff – Magistrate Court, Ponnani. Ext. A17 document is the copy of property schedule. Ext. A18 document is the copy of Ameen report showing execution of order of Munsiff Court, Ponnani. Ext. A19 document is the copy of Ameen Report showing execution of order of Munciff Court , Ponnani. Ext. A20 document is the copy of order of warrant of arrest issued by the CDRF, Malappuram. Ext. A21 document is the copy of the petition filed before Police Complaint Authority by the complainant. Ext. A22 document is the copy of the complaint filed before ombudsman. Ext. A23 document is the copy of letter written by Grama Panchayath Members to the Secretary. Ext. A24 document is the copy of the programme notice published in connection with handing over of a house to the second opposite party by Muslim League. Ext. A25 document is the copy of notice issued to the opposite party declaring willingness to arrange quarantine centre. Ext. A26 document is the copy of letter dated 31/05/2020 submitted before the Secretary of Grama Panchayath by complainant. Ext. A27 document is the copy of letter dated 01/06/2020 submitted before the secretary, Tavanur Grama Panchayath by the complainant. The opposite parties did not file affidavit and no document is marked on the side of the opposite parties.
8) Heard both sides in detail. Perused affidavit and documents . The points arised for the consideration of the commission are follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the side of the opposite
parties.
2) Relief and cost
9) Point No.1 & 2
The complainant approached the commission to get addressed his grievances explained in the documents marked as Ext. A1 , A4, A6. The complainant did not specifically explained his grievances in the complaint. Instead, the complainant produced the above said documents for revealing the alleged negligence and deficiency of service of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are then President and Secretary of Tavanur Grama Panchayath. Ext. A1 document is the copy of complaint filed before Tavanur Grama Panchayath committee regarding reception of quotation in the name of non existent firms. According to the complainant no such firm is existed and fake firm applied for getting work of Grama panchayath. The opposite parties contended in the version that quotations are received only after conducting scrutiny. According to the opposite parties, there is no quotation from GST Agencies as alleged by the complainant but grama Panchayath received quotation of BSGST agencies with proof of licence. Even though the opposite parties produced copy of licence before this commission, did not make any attempt to mark that document. On the contrary the complainant produced Ext. A3 document to substantiate the allegation. It is admitted by the complainant that the above said firm is owned by his brother. The opposite parties contended that there is a rivalry between the brothers and the complainant is make use of the situation. Considering the documents produced by the complainant and contents in the complaint it can be seen that the nature of the allegation is corruption. The complainant himself claiming that he is a whistle blower. But this Commission cannot take action or pronounce order against the opposite parties on the basis of allegation of corruption. The complainant has no case that he is also forwarded quotation before the opposite parties for the same purpose. So commission finds no merit on that aspect.
10). The complainant also produced Ext. A4 document to agitate against the irresponsible behaviour of the employees of Grama Panchayath . As pet the Ext. A4 document, according to the complainant the employees of Grama Panchayath not properly accepting applications, appeal and petitions from the complainant. Most of the applications are rejected by the staffs of the opposite parties. In the version it submitted by the opposite parties that the grama panchayath is providng excellent services to the public including the complainant. Going through the evidence , it can be seen that no specific case is proved by the complainant with regard to non availability of service from the side of the opposite parties.
11) The complainant also made allegation that his application for conduct certificate is rejected by the opposite party. Ext. A6 document is the copy of application submitted by the complainant before the opposite parties. But in the version, according to the opposite parties the Grama Panchayath Committee opposed and rejected the application. The Grama Panchayath committee found that complainant is a kind of person making nuisance and trouble in the functioning of offices of the Grama Panchayath and other public offices in the locality. According to them, the employees in the Grama Panchayath office also facing trouble due to the improper behaviour of the complainant. At the same time the complainant produced Ext. A9 document to show that he is having good character in the society . But this document was not considered at the time scrutiny of his application for conduct certificate, the complainant contended .Evaluating this aspect, the commission finds that this commission cannot act as an appellate authority of the Grama Panchayath committee. If there is any grievance due to the decision of opposite parties Grama Panchayath committee the complainant could have approached proper authority as per Panchayath Raj Act, 1994. The complainant produced a number of documents in this case. But those documents did not help to support the case of the complainant. The commission makes its judgment on the basis of the evidence contained in the documents and not on the number of the documents submitted. The contention raised in the complaint and supporting affidavit failed to bring out a definite case against the opposite parties. There is failure on the part of the complainant in choosing the forum to get addressed his grievances. So this commission finds no merit in the complaint.
In the light of the above stated facts and circumstances the commission dismiss the complaint.
Dated this 31st day of August, 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Membe
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A
Ext.A1: Copy of the complaint filed by complainant before Tavanur Grama
Panchayath committee .
Ext.A2: Copy of document received from public Information officer Tavanur Grama
Panchayath dated 23/06/2021.
Ext A3: Copy of letter dated 12/11/2018 sent by Deputy Director of Panchayat to the
secretary, Tavanoor Grama Panchayat.
Ext A4: Copy of the complaint dated 22/01/2020 submitted by the complainant to
Tavanur Grama Panchayath committee .
Ext A5: Copy of the receipt dated 22/01/2020 issued by Tavanur Grama Panchayath.
Ext.A6: Copy of the application for conduct certificate submitted by the complainant
before President, Tavanur Grama Panchayath.
Ext.A7: Copy of receipt dated 03/06/2020 issued by Tavanur Grama Panchayath
Ext A8: Copy of publication informing the public about the documents issued by
president of Grama Panchayat.
Ext A9: Copy of certificate issued by the member of grama Panchayat ward No.9,
Tavanur,.
Ext A10: Copy of quotation submitted by GST Agencies
Ext.A11: Copy of FIS in crime No.241/2020 of Kuttipuram police station.
Ext.A12: Copy of notice dated 18/10/2020 issued by the Inspector of Police,
Kuttipuram.
Ext A13: Copy of the statement given by the secretary of Tavanur Grama
Panchayath given before the police .
Ext A14: Document is the copy of the land tax receipt issued from Tavanur Village
office.
Ext A15: Copy of complaint made against village officer by the complainant.
Ext.A16: Copy of warranty dated 17/01/2020 issued by Munsiff – Magistrate Court,
Ponnani.
Ext. A17: Copy of property schedule.
Ext.A18: Copy of Ameen report showing execution Munsiff Court, Ponnai.
Ext A19: Copy of Ameen Report showing execution of order of Munciff Court ,
Ponnani.
Ext A20: Copy of order of warrant of arrest issued by the CDRF, Malappuram.
Ext A21: Copy of the petition filed before police complaint Authority by the
complainant.
Ext.A22: Copy of the petition filed before ombudsman.
Ext.A23: Copy of letter written grama Panchayath Members to the secretary.
Ext A24: Copy of the programme notice published in connection with handing over of
a house to the second opposite party by Muslim League.
Ext A25: Copy of notice issued to the opposite party declaring willingness to arrange
quarantine centre.
Ext A26: Copy of letter dated 31/05/2020 submitted before the secretary of grama
Panchayath by complainant.
Ext.A27: Copy of letter dated 01/06/2020 submitted before the secretary , Tavanur
Grama Panchayath by the complainant
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
