IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 38094 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ NAZAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MAMMU, VELAKKADAPARAMBU, ELAMAKKARA P.O., KOZHI - 26. BY MR.BIMAL K.NATH,ADVOCATE MR.S.JAMAL,ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. COCHIN CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM. 2. FATHIMA, W/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, RASIYA MANZIL, VELAKKADAPARAMBU, ELEMAKKARA P.O., KOCHI - 26. BY MR.P.CHANDRASEKHAR,ADVOCATE FOR R2 MR.C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,COCHIN CORPORATI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.38094 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT In this writ petition, I passed the following interim order dated 11.3.2009 which speaks for itself: “This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext. P6 order of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, which reads thus: “The report of the Regional Joint Director shows that the petitioner has a concrete road at the front and that the present claim is for one more access thereto from the rear through the land surrendered by the 2nd respondent for making a drain. She offered to provide slabs over the drain at her own expense, but the 1st respondent refused to give sanction on 19.5.08. It may be correct to say that private persons should not make addition in Corporation's land. Nevertheless, there is no harm in the Corporation itself making cover slabs with money donated by the petitioner. The 1st respondent is directed to consider whether it is feasible to get an estimate for the work of providing slabs through the Corporation's Engineer and to give an opportunity to the petitioner to donate the cost of the work so that all concerned will be benefited. A decision in the matter should be taken within 3 months of receipt of a copy of this order. Original petition closed.” 2. This writ petition was filed during vacation and came up for admission before the vacation court on 26- 12-2008. This Court admitted the same and granted an interim stay of Ext. P6 order for a period of 2 months. W.P.(C)No.38094/08 2 Thereafter, it came up before me for extension of stay on 11-2-2009. On that day, I expressed a doubt as to whether the petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition challenging the same order which had not been mentioned in this writ petition. Therefore, I directed the petitioner to inform this Court as to whether an earlier writ petition had been filed challenging Ext. P6 order. On 18-2-2009, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that challenging the very same order, the petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition, which was withdrawn. He also admitted that the said fact was not mentioned in this writ petition. 3. The earlier writ petition was W.P(C) No. 34988/2008. When it came up for admission before me, I pointed out to the petitioner's advocate that the petitioner is not in any way affected by the 2nd respondent getting the drainage in question covered by slabs at his expense and using the same as a pathway and that I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. It was at that time counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw that writ petition. Accordingly, that writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn. The petitioner did not also seek any liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action nor was any such liberty given. The petitioner has filed this writ petition thereafter during vacation without mentioning therein that the earlier writ petition filed challenging the same order was withdrawn without any liberty to file a fresh writ petition. It was only when this Court remembered the fact that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition and pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned counsel for the petitioner had come forward to disclose that fact. Evidently, this is an abuse of process of the Court. In the above circumstances I am of opinion that the petitioner should be proceeded against appropriately. The petitioner shall show cause within two weeks as to why the petitioner should not be W.P.(C)No.38094/08 3 proceeded against for the act of fraud committed by him. Post after two weeks”. Because of the fraudulent acts of the petitioner, I was inclined to direct initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. However, the petitioner has now filed an affidavit offering unconditional apology. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he is prepared to withdraw the writ petition unconditionally. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to accept the unconditional apology submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, further proceedings on the question of criminal prosecution are dropped. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn on the undertaking of the petitioner that on this cause of action, the petitioner would not file any other proceedings either before this Court or before any other authority. However, the petitioner cannot be let off without at least a direction to pay exemplary costs for his unbecoming conduct. Therefore, the petitioner shall also pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the 2 nd respondent. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(C)No.38094/08 4