Chairperson vs Girish Babu.G
2021 Latest Caselaw 13616 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
  THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 9120 OF 2012
PETITIONER:

    1    CHAIRPERSON
         AGED 53 YEARS
         KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O,
         KALAMASSERY.

    2    THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY
         REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
         CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O, KALAMASSERY.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER
         SRI.D.M.NOWFAL



RESPONDENT:

         GIRISH BABU.G
         PUNNAKKADAN HOUSE, CUSAT.P.O, KOCHI- 680 022.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.JOSEPH RONY JOSE
         SRI.E.A.JOSE



THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 9120 OF 2012
                               -2-



                          JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the Chairperson

of the Kalamassery Municipality and the

Kalamassery Municipality challenging Exts. P1 and

P3 orders passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self

Government Institutions. The said orders read

thus:-

"Heard both sides. The complainant concedes that he had no accreditation as on 22.06.2009 the day on which the complainant was allegedly denied entry into the Council Hall. He, however, maintains that other press persons who also had no accreditation, were allowed entry and that there is hence discrimination. In the circumstances, I close the case with a direction to the respondents to allow entry into the Council Hall on a uniform basis, say only to those with accreditation and that others be given adequate briefing in the room of the secretary or any other appropriate room in the Municipal Building itself. The petitioner will also be allowed to attend such briefing, provided, he maintains decorum."

"This is an application filed by the petitioner regarding his entry in the Council Hall without meeting the practice going on. My predecessor in office by his order dated 21.10.2009 held that " I close the case with a WP(C) NO. 9120 OF 2012

direction to the respondents to allow entry into the Council Hall on a uniform basis, say only to those with accreditation and that others be given adequate briefing in the room of the Secretary or any other appropriate room in the Municipal Building itself. The petitioner will also be allowed to attend such briefing, provided, he maintains decorum."

So the order of my predecessor makes it crystal clear that the authorities should adopt a uniform procedure and the participants could keep a decorum, which is expected to be maintained in the Council Hall. Therefore, I dispose of this petition with a direction to the authorities to implement a uniform practice and if the petitioner comes within the four corners of the uniform practice, allow him to participate. Similarly, the petitioner is also directed to maintain a high decorum, so that there is no chance for a scuffle etc in the Council Hall. I make it very clear that the uniform practice means the uniform practice prescribed, followed or decided by the Council.

The order passed by this authority is modified accordingly and R.P is disposed of."

2. The paramount contention advanced in the

writ petition by the Municipality is that, the

Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Kerala

Municipality (Procedure for Meeting of

Council)Rules 1995 deals with the functions of the

Chairperson and the control of the council

meeting. Other contentions are also raised to the WP(C) NO. 9120 OF 2012

effect that the Chairperson is vested with ample

powers to regulate and control the meeting and

therefore, when there are clear provisions under

the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Rules

referred above, there was no requirement for the

Ombudsman to interfere in the matter.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the

petitioners Sri.M.K.Aboobacker.

4. Eventhough the time is sought for filing

vakkalath by the respondent, I am not inclined to

grant the same, since I find from the order passed

by the Ombudsman that there is nothing to be

probed into the same and the petitioners are never

aggrieved by the order passed by the Ombudsman,

since the interest of the Municipality and the

power of the Chairperson is well protected under

the orders passed by the Ombudsman. Needless to

say, there is nothing to be interfered with the

Ombudsman's order as the Municipality's interest WP(C) NO. 9120 OF 2012

is protected. Therefore, the writ petition fails,

accordingly it is dismissed.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO. 9120 OF 2012

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9120/2012

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION NO.R.P.8/10 IN O.P. 1047/2009 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2012 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.06.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON BEFORE THE S.I OF POLICE KALAMASSERY.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 04.01.2010.