IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31609 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VISALAKSHY, W/O. K.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 54 YEARS, SECRETARY, KATTAKAMPAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PAZHANJI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 544, RESIDING AT PRASANTHI, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR-680 101. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SOBHANAN V.A., KALATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KARIYAMBRA, PAZHANJI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 544. 2. THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 31609 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Secretary of Kattakampal Grama Panchayat. She had issued Ext.P1 notice under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of Encroachment and Imposition and Recovery of Penalty for Unathorised Occupation) Rules 1996 to Smt. Mathiri and Smt. Annamma calling upon them to vacate the Poramboke lands which they had encroached upon. It appears the same was the subject matter of an enquiry before the Hon'ble Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. Upon receipt of Ext.P1 notice, Smt. Mathiri, one among the persons to whom notice was issued, submitted Ext.P2 reply. On behalf of Smt. Annamma, Ext.P3 reply was submitted by her sister's son. Thereafter the case came up before the Hon'ble Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions on 12.7.2010. On that day, the Hon'ble Ombudsman directed the petitioner to take a decision in the matter if objections have been received to the notice, after considering the objections and if no objections have been received on an ex parte basis. The petitioner was also directed to report about the action taken on 13.9.2010. The petitioner did not do WPC No.31609/2010 2 anything till 6.9.2010. On that day she issued Ext.P7 notice dated 6.9.2010 calling upon the persons to whom Ext.P1 notice was issued to appear for a hearing at 2 pm on 17.9.2010. The case before the Hon'ble Ombudsman was again considered on 13.9.2010. On that day on noticing that the petitioner has not complied with the directions issued in Ext.P4, but had only called upon the persons to whom Ext.P1 notice was issued to appear on 17.9.2010, the Hon'ble Ombudsman came to the conclusion that the petitioner/the Secretary of Kattakampal Grama Panchayat has not complied with the directions earlier issued by the Hon'ble Ombudsman. It was found that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to discharge her duties. The petitioner was also held liable to pay the sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Ext.P8 order was accordingly passed calling upon the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.1,000/- and to appear and produce the proof of such payment before 19.10.2010. Ext.P8 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The facts stated establish beyond doubt that there was failure on the part of the petitioner in complying with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Ombudsman in Ext.P4. By Ext.P4, the petitioner was directed to pass orders pursuant to Ext.P1 and to report about the action taken on 13.9.2010. On 13.9.2010 she WPC No.31609/2010 3 reported to the Hon'ble Ombudsman that the enquiry is posted to 17.9.2010. As the petitioner had not admittedly complied with Ext.P4 order passed by the Hon'ble Ombudsman and she had no explanation for the delay on her part in not taking action pursuant to Ext.P1 before 13.9.2010, the Hon'ble Ombudsman was in my opinion perfectly justified in directing the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Even in the writ petition, the petitioner has no case that she had passed orders before 13.9.2010. Her conduct in waiting till 6.9.2010 to issue Ext.P7 notice notwithstanding the fact that the Hon'ble Ombudsman had directed her to pass orders before 13.9.2010 is proof positive of the fact that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with Ext.P4 order. I therefore find no grounds to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.31609/2010 4