IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18023 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GCDA), REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, SC,GCDA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. K. SREENIVASAN, SREEKRISHNA (THOPPILIKAT) P.O., GOVINDAPURAM, KOZHIKODE-16. 2. UPA LOK AYUKTA, OFFICE OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 22, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 18023 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Greater Cochin Development Authority. They are aggrieved by Ext. P10 order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta, whereby for failure to realise rent arrears from an allottee of shops, whose allotment was cancelled for non-payment of rent, the petitioner was directed to proceed against the employees who were responsible for the non-realisation of the rent arrears. The contention raised before me is that the order was passed without hearing the employees against whom proceedings were directed to be initiated by Ext. P10. The petitioner has also raised a contention that in view of the limitation prescribed under the Act, the Lok Ayukta did not have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint on which Ext. P10 has been passed. 2. Regarding the question of want of notice to the concerned employees, I am of opinion that the petitioner is not in any way aggrieved by the same and if at all it is the employees against whom proceedings are to be initiated who can raise such a contention. Regarding the question of limitation, admittedly, the petitioner has not raised it before the Lok Ayukta. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge against Ext. P10 at the instance of the petitioner, who is not in any way aggrieved by the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.