Thomson Wright vs The Ombudsman For The Local Self ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10471 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 22627 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            THOMSON WRIGHT, AGED 61 YEARS
            S/O. LATE GEORGE, PALACKAL VEEDU,
            OCHANTHURUTHU P.O,
            KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682508.
            BY ADVS.
            GEORGE SEBASTIAN
            B.S.SURESH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE OMBUDSMAN FOR THE
            LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,
            OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, BARTON HILL,
            VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695035.
    2       THE ELAMKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
            OFFICE OF THE ELAMKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
            MALIPPURAM P.O, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682511.
    3       THE SECRETARY,
            ELAMKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
            OFFICE OF THE ELAMKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
            MALIPPURAM P.O, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682511.
    4       JOSEPH K.N.,
            MINI INDUSTRIES, KURISUPURACKAL VEEDU,
            OCHANTHURUTHU P.O., KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682508.
            BY ADVS.
            BENZIR P. M.-R2 AND R3
            R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN-R4
            R.RANJANIE-R4
    THIS      WRIT     PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON     07.10.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.22627 OF 2022

                              2


                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of October, 2022

The 4th respondent, aggrieved by an alleged dangerous

tree standing in the property of the petitioner, approached the

2nd respondent seeking to remove the dangerous tree.

Thereafter, the 4th respondent approached the Ombudsman

for the Local Self Government Institutions.

2. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

Ombudsman passed Ext.P7 order directing the

3rd respondent-Secretary to the Grama Panchayat to cut and

remove the alleged dangerous tree and report it to the

Ombudsman. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that

Ext.P7 has been passed without hearing the petitioner

inasmuch as though the petitioner was required to appear

before the Ombudsman on a particular date, the said date

was declared as a holiday. Thereafter, the petitioner was not

informed of any subsequent postings or proceedings. The WP(C) NO.22627 OF 2022

petitioner urged that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to

entertain such a petition.

3. Counsel for the 4th respondent per contra would

submit that the coconut tree is standing precariously causing

grave threat to the life of the 4th respondent and members of

his family. As the Secretary failed to take any action on the

complaint made by the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent

approached the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is amply

empowered and competent to consider the grievance,

contends the counsel for the 4th respondent.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 and

3 and the learned counsel representing the 4th respondent.

5. It is not disputed that the complaint in respect of the

dangerous tree has to be considered by the Panchayat

Committee in view of Section 238(1) of the Kerala Panchayat

Raj Act, 1994. Therefore, this Court is of the view that at least

at the first instance, the competent authority has to take a WP(C) NO.22627 OF 2022

decision in the matter.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent to consider the complaint filed by

the 4th respondent and take appropriate decision thereon,

after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as

well as the 4th respondent. The Secretary is directed to place

the complaint filed by the 4th respondent before the

2nd respondent for taking decision in this regard. To enable

the 2nd respondent to take a decision in the matter, Ext.P7 is

set aside. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a

period of six weeks.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) NO.22627 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22627/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.3.2022 ASKING THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR ON 3.5.2022 THROUGH ONLINE. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.3.2022 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN IN O.P.

241/2022.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 16.5.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN O.P. 241/2022 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 21.5.2022.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED 23.5.2022.

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.6.2022 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R4A THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1.7.2021 SUBMITTED BY ME TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit R4B THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.6.2019 SUBMITTED BY ME, TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit R4C THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 24.5.2022 Exhibit R4D THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.3.2022, INTIMATING THE HEARING DATE AS 3.5.2022.

Exhibit R4E THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.5.2022, INTIMATING THE HEARING DATE AS 13.6.2022 Exhibit R4F THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED NIL.