Rajan vs Municipal Chairman, Adoor ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11128 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
   SATURDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 16193 OF 2015
PETITIONER/S:

            RAJAN
            AGED 40 YEARS
            S/O.CHERUKUNNIL PUTHENVEETTIL RAMAN, ADOOR
            TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
            BY ADV SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR
RESPONDENT/S:
    1     MUNICIPAL CHAIRMAN, ADOOR MUNICIPALITY
          PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 686 501.
    2     MUNICIPAL SECRETARY
          ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.686
          501.
    3     STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          LOCAL SELFGOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
          DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
          001.
          BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ,
          SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR, SC, ADOOR MUNICIPALITY
OTHER PRESENT:

            GP : Sri. Sangeeth C.V


     THIS    WRIT   PETITION     (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   19.11.2022,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                              2



W.P.C. NO. 16193 of 2015




                          MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
                 ..........................................................
                          W.P.C. NO. 16193 of 2015
                ............................................................
                  Dated this the 19th day of November, 2022


                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext. P3 order passed by the

Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions,

Thiruvananthapuram in the Original Petition filed by him as OP No.

1881/2012 alleging corruption and maladministration against the

Chairman and Secretary of Adoor Municipality regarding the purchase

of 34.5 Ares of land in the name of the Municipality covered by sale

deed No. 2122 of 2012. In the said case, PWs 1 and 2 were

examined and Exts. A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the

petitioner. Evidence was recorded by the predecessor of the

Ombudsman, who passed the impugned order.

2. The specific challenge of the writ petition mentioned in

W.P.C. NO. 16193 of 2015

paragraph 5 of the writ petition is extracted.

"On the side of the petitioner, Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A11 were marked. On the side of respondents, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts. D1 to D33 were marked. The evidence was taken while the predecessor of the Ombudsman who passed the impugned order was in office. Declining the request made on behalf of the petitioner for hearing, the impugned order has been passed which has seriously prejudiced the petitioner. The order dated 10-10-2014 in O.P. No. 1881/2012 passed by the Ombudsman for local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P3".

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 in

which a reply is submitted as follows:

"In reply to paragraph 5, it is respectfully submitted that there is no legal provision that the evidence already taken on record shall cease to be relevant once the presiding officer is replaced with a new appointee. Hence, the Ombudsman was right in rejecting the plea of the petitioner for a hearing".

3. A reading of the above would clearly show that no

hearing was granted to the petitioner after the evidence was taken

before passing the order impugned. In such circumstances, in the

absence of any material to show that there was a hearing granted to

W.P.C. NO. 16193 of 2015

the petitioner, the only option available is to set aside Ext. P3 order

and to direct the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions

to pass fresh orders on Ext. P1 complaint, after hearing the parties.

The parties will also be free to produce any material relevant to the

issue or point out the subsequent events which also will be

considered while passing fresh orders on Ext. P1 complaint.

This Writ Petition ( C) is allowed as above.

Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

ani/

/true copy/

W.P.C. NO. 16193 of 2015

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16193/2015

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN O.P NO.1881/2012 BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE CHAIRMAN, ADOOR MUNICIPALITY EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.10.2014 IN O.P NO.1881/2012 PASSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 26.11.2012 OF THE VIGILANCE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SOUTHERN RANGE. EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER SHOWING THE VALUE OF THE DIFFERENT PLOTS EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF EXT.D8 VALUATION CERTIFICATE DATED 16.3.2012 OF THE TAHSILDAR ADOOR TALUK.