IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11274 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. T.J. ANTONY, THALIYATH HOUSE, PATHUVAPURAM P.O., PANTHAKKAL, KARUKUTTY, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.11274 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Chalakkudy Municipality. They are aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P5 orders of the Ombudsman for local authorities. By Ext.P3 order, the Ombudsman directed thus: “The Counsel for the Municipality submitted that they were not aware whether the permission of the Railway is necessary for carrying on the work. They are trying to get permission from the Railway Authorities. We hope that the Railway authorities will give permission to the Municipality. However, I direct that the Municipality should obtain permission from the Railway Authorities within three months. In case permission is granted, the petitioner shall immediately compete the work. The Municipality should before starting the work, take measurement of the work already done and for the balance work that is being done by the petitioner will be paid on the revised rate. In case the Municipality fails to take permission from the Railway Authorities within three months, the petitioner shall be refunded Rs.50,000/- along with the security deposit.” Since it was not implemented, the matter was again taken up with the Ombudsman by the 2nd respondent. By Ext.P5 order, the Ombudsman directed implementation of Ext.P3 order. the petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P5 in this writ petition. Ext.P3 order was passed on 13.12.2007. The petitioner did not take any steps to challenge the same for more than an year. There is absolutely no explanation as to why they could not challenge the same within a reasonable time. That being so, I am not inclined to entertain the belated challenge against Exts.P3 and consequently the challenge against Ext.P5 also, which is only a direction to implement Ext.P3. Even otherwise, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// 2 P.A. to Judge