IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27454 of 2007(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. N.B.VIJAYAKUMAR, PARTNER, SREE DEVI HOTEL, CHOTTANIKARA. 2. K.S.RAMAKRISHNAN, MANAGER, RAJESWARI HOTEL, CHOTTANIKKARA. 3. K.K.BALAKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, JAGADHAMBIKA HOTEL, CHOTTANIKKARA. 4. SHAJI GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, P.P.G. TOURIST HOME, CHOTTANIKKARA. 5. T.K.SASI, PROPRIETOR, KRISHNA REST HOUSE, CHOTTANIKKARA. 6. LISSY AIJU, PROPRIETOR, DARSANNA LODGE, CHOTTANIKKARA. 7. N.K.GOPALAN, PROPRIETOR, VINAYAKA HOTEL CHOTTANIKKARA. 8. GOPINATHAN, PROPRIETOR, GANESH BHAVAN HOTEL, CHOTTANIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. K.V.KURIAN, KAKKAMVEETTIL, KUREEKKAD, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. W.P.(C) NO.27454/2007 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHOTTANIKKARA TEMPLE, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O. 5. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. SURESH KUMAR, SANKAROTH HOUSE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DIST. 7. V.K.MOHANAN, VADAKKEDATHU HOUSE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DIST. 8. KRISHNA KUMAR, KANMANY SADANAM CHOTTANIKKARA , ERNAKULAM DIST. 9. VENUGOPAL , VAISHNAVAM, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DIST. 10. JOHNY, SECRETARY, PADASEKHARA NELLULPADAKA SAMITHI, CHOTTANIKKARA. 11. LALITHA, SECRETARY, DEEPAM KUDUMBASREE AYALKOOTTAM, CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, WARD NO. III. ADDL. R6 TO R11 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 25.03.2008 IN IA. 3643/08. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.BIJIMON C.CHERIAN SMT.P.P.STELLA SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR - R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.27454/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A2-778/05 DT. 21.5.07 ISSUED BY THE 32ND RESPONDENT, TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 15.6.07. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 2.6.07 IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO.902/06 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A2/778/05 DT. 6.9.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 18.3.05 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(b):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 23.3.05 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(c):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 23.3.05 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.R1(d):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 4.5.05 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.R1(e):- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 11.5.07 OF ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 27454 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The prominent ground on which Ext.P3 order of the Ombudsman has been challenged in this writ petition is that the petitioners who are going to be affected by Ext.P3 were not not heard by the Ombudsman before Ext.P3 order was passed. The first respondent who filed a complaint before the Ombudsman has filed a counter affidavit and at paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows: “In the complaint filed before the 5th respondent no relief is sought against these petitioners by this respondent and no notice was given to the petitioners by the 5th respondent to my knowledge as contended by them. In fact, the 5th respondent was acted in conformity with the provisions contemplated in Chapter XXVB of The Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and under The Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions ( Inquiry of Complaints and Service Conditions) Rules 1999 and Ext.P3 order was passed after WPC.No.27454/08 2 complying with all the procedures contemplated there under. The Ext.P3 order of the 5th respondent is the directions to the 2nd respondent and to the 3rd respondent for the prevention of the grave health hazard created due to the fleshing out the rubbish, filth and debris into the drainage.” 2. I am fairly convinced that the petitioners have reason to feel aggrieved by Ext.P3 and that Ext.P3 should not have been passed without hearing them also. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P3 on the ground that the same has been passed without hearing the petitioners. I.A.No.3643/08 is an application for impleading, has been filed by six other persons. According to them Ext.P3 order is a perfectly valid order and in case, this court is inclined to relegate the matter back to the Ombudsman, they also should be permitted to urge their contentions before the Ombudsman. I am of the view that the request of the petitioners in the impleading application is reasonable. The result is that Ext.P3 order issued by the Ombudsman and the consequential notices issued by the Panchayat ( Exs.P1 and P4 )are set WPC.No.27454/08 3 aside. Fifth respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioners, respondents 1 to 4 and also to the additional respondents who have been impleaded as per order in I.A.No.3643/08. Fresh orders will be passed after hearing all these persons at the Ombudsman's earliest. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.27454/08 4