K.G.Sekharan Unni vs Ombudsman For Local Self ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 19258 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

         TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943

                           WP(C) NO. 21744 OF 2010

PETITIONER/S:

              K.G.SEKHARAN UNNI
              CHITTUR TATTAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY,, RESIDING AT AMBATT
              LINE, PIN-678101. CHITTUR,, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
              BY ADVS.
              SRI.G.HARIHARAN
              SRI.PRAVEEN.H.


RESPONDENT/S:

     1        OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT.INSTITUTIO
              INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
     2        MS. RAIDCO KERALA LTD. NO.15234 INDI
              RA GANDHI MUNICIPAL STADIUM. KUNNATHURMED,, PALAKKAD-
              678013.
     3        CHITTUR TATTAMANGALAM MUNCIPALITY
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHITTUR,, PALAKKAD. PIN-678101.
     4        SUCHITHWA MISSION LOCAL SELF
              GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001,,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 21744/2010                         :2:




             Dated this the 14th day of September, 2021.

                                JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following

reliefs:

1. Set aside Ext. P4 order passed by the first respondent as the same is passed without hearing the petitioner and other councilors.

2. Direct the 4th respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext. P3 representation filed by the 3 rd respondent.

2. The subject issue relates to Ext. P4 notice issued by the

Ombudsman, Thiruvananthapuram in complaint No. 519/2010 to the

petitioner and 24 others. What is under challenge is the notice

directing the Municipality to take steps to serve notice on the

respondents therein, including the writ petitioner. I do not think, mere

issuance of notice is a cause of action for challenge of any proceedings

pending before the Ombudsman. If the petitioner was, in any manner,

aggrieved by the complaint pending before the Ombudsman, he was at

liberty to approach the Ombudsman and explain the circumstances.

3. Further, this writ petition came up for admission before this

Court on 13.07.2010, on which day the learned counsel for the

petitioner sought time to produce the order, if any, passed by the

Ombudsman pursuant to Ext. P4. Thereafter, the matter was posted to

20.03.2020. The writ petition is not even admitted and after a lapse of

11 years, one cannot believe that any proceedings are pending

consideration before the Ombudsman.

4. In that view of the matter, I do not think, anything survives

to be considered in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is

dismissed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to take up all the

contentions before the Ombudsman, if the complaint is still pending.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21744/2010

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE COMPLAINT DATED 12.03.2010.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD ISSUED ON 25.02.2010.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DATED 04.01.2010 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2010 IN PASSING COMPLAINT NO.519/2010.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 13.03.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE CHITTUR TATTAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/True Copy/

PS To Judge.

rv