Kerala High Court
S.Ambika vs The Ombudsman, Mahatma Gandhi National ... on 27 May, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3514 OF 2014
PETITIONER/S:
S.AMBIKA
ATTARIKATHU VEEDU, CHULLIMANOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695541.
BY ADVS.
SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
SMT.J.KASTHURI
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SRI.SEBIN THOMAS
SRI.VIVEK V. KANNANKERI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE OMBUDSMAN, MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)
CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.
2 PANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
PANAVOOR P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695568.
3 P.K.RAJENDRAN
CHANDRAMOHANA VILASAM, KOTHAKULANGARA, PANAYAMUTTAM
P.O., NEDUMANGAD-695561.
BY ADVS.
SRI. VENUGOPAL V., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3514 OF 2014 2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, who the Ward Member of Ward No.IV of
Panoor Grama Panchayat, has approached this Court,
challenging Ext.P4 order of the Ombudsman, Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter
referred to as 'the MGNREG Scheme), through which the
petitioner was called upon to refund a sum of Rs.3,360/-
(Rupees Three thousand three hundred and sixty only)
together with 12% interest, upon the finding that the
petitioner had illegally received the said amount in her
account out of funds for the MGNREG Scheme. The principal
contention taken by the petitioner in the writ petition is that
Ext.P4 was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner.
2. A reading of Ext.P4 itself shows that the Ombudsman
had personally visited the office of the Panchayat and sought
clarifications from the officials as also from the petitioner. It is
thereafter that, Ext.P4 was passed.
3. Even today, the service to the 3rd respondent is not
complete and the matter is posted in the defect list. Learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks further time to cure
the defects.
4. However, having gone through Ext.P4 order, I am of
the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground for
interference with Ext.P4 order. As already noted, the only
substantial ground raised is that the order was passed without
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This
ground cannot be sustained. The other ground raised is that,
the petitioner was not given an opportunity to rebut the
'evidence appearing against her'. Considering the nature of
the averments and the nature of the order passed by the
Ombudsman, I am of the view that this ground also does not
sustain as no elaborate inquiry was contemplated, considering
the issues that arose for consideration before the Ombudsman.
The writ petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ajt
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3514/2014
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31-10-2012
SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER ALONG WITH SMT. PREMAKUMARI.
EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3-10-
2012 TO THE SECRETARY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 07-01-
2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
