IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24591 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- USHA JANARDHANAN, W/O.JANARDHANAN, AGED 45 YEARS, 20/1725, PALLURUTHI P.O, KOCHI-682006, ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. NIKARTHIL SASI, S/O.KUNJAPPAN AGED 50 YEARS, NAMBISSERIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.20/1727, PALLURUTHI P.O, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DT. 2. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC, COCHIN CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 24591 OF 2008 C ==================== Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in this writ petition is to quash order dated 16/7/08 in C.M.P 121/07 in O.P 304/05 passed by the 3rd respondent. It would appear that the petitioner is the complainant before Ombudsman and what is sought for is demolition of certain construction which is allegedly unauthorised. It is contending that the proceedings now initiated are unsatisfactory and that there is a possibility of the 1st respondent colluding with the officers of the Corporation, that the petitioner is seeking the reliefs in this writ petition. 2. In my view, this writ petition is misconceived. This is for the reason that considering the grievances of the petitioner, by Ext.P4 order, the Ombudsman had called for a report. Subsequently, by Ext.P5, the Ombudsman had passed an order to measure and verify if any objectionable part is to be demolished. This direction is again seen reiterated by Ext.P7. All these orders are interlocutory in nature and proceedings are still pending. If that be so, even if in implementation of those orders, any error or illegality has been committed by officials of the WPC 24591/08 :2 : Corporation, petitioner has the opportunity to appraise the Ombudsman and seek appropriate orders in that behalf. In view of this, I do not think the matter calls for any interference at the hands of this Court at this stage of the proceedings. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp