IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 11606 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KHADEEJA MADAMBILLATH, W/O.MUHAMED KUNHI HAJI, BAITHULMINAR,OLAVARA, P.O.UDUMBUMTHALA, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,REP.BY THE SECRETARY, OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, BARTON HILL BUNGLOW,VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. N.RAVEENDRAN,S/O.NANU, OLAVARA,UDUMBUMTHALA P.O., SOUTH THRIKARIPUR,KASARGOD. BY GP K R DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 11606 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner and her husband was in the process of erecting a building, which is stated to have reached the stage where any stoppage of the construction activity would result in irreparable injury to the petitioner and her husband. It is stated that the Ombudsman for Local Self Government institutions have issued an interim order of status quo of the construction on an allegation in Ext.P1. The Secretary of the Panchayat is also directed to proceed against the builder. Faced with this situation, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Ombudsman for expeditious disposal of the proceedings in relation to which Ext.P3 interim order was issued. 2. The learned Ombudsman exercises the authority under the statutory provisions. Therefore, it may be technically within jurisdiction to consider whether there could be a writ of mandamus to compel conclusion of the proceedings in a given fact situation. The interim order Ext.P3 was issued only on WP(C)11606/2009 2 20.2.2009. Obviously, the petitioner has the opportunity to move the learned Ombudsman for further orders or for consideration of the entire matter. This court would not easily assume that there is a failure on the part of the learned Ombudsman to exercise the statutory and public duty as enjoined by the laws. The mere fact that the matter has been pending for around three months now, with an interim order does not persuade this court to issue any directions. Though petitioner states that Ext.P1 is of the year 2008, Ext.P2 shows that the learned Ombudsman had ordered notice only on 30.1.2009. Therefore it is for the petitioner to move the learned Ombudsman for any expeditious disposal of the matter, highlighting her grievances. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to such course. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/6/6