IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 14354 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHEEROTHPATHANA SAHAKARANA SANGAM LTD. NO.A 169-D, APCOS, THYCATTUSSERY, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.G.D.PANICKER SMT.JEENA JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, KERALA SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DISTRICT VETERINARY OFFICER, VETERINARY OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. REGISTRAR OF KERALA STATE, VETERINARY COUNCIL, PEROORKADA, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE SECRETARY/PRESIDENT, THYCATTUSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THYCATTUSSERY, ALPPUZHA. 6. SECRETARY, THYCATTUSSERRY BLOCK PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA. 7. P.J.PAUL, PATHIYAMOOLA, MANAPPURAM P.O., THYCATTUSSERY, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.R.SURESH KUMAR R7 BY ADV.SRI.M.V.BOSE R5 BY ADV.SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 14354/07) PETITIONER'S EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.7.2000. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.1.2005. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.7.2005. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE SENIOR VETERINARY SURGEON BEFORE THE HONOURABLE OMBUDSMAN. EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN O.P.NO.555/2006 DATED 31.10.06. RESPONDENTS EXTS.(3RD RESPONDENT): EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.9/2000 DT. 10.4.2000. EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LR.NO.7553/2000 DT. 13.7.2000 WITH A PLAN. EXT.R3(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LR.NO.A1-10550/2006 DT. 7.12.2006. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 23rd January, 2008 JUDGMENT On 11.1.2008 it was submitted on behalf of the Panchayat that in implementation of the Ombudsman's order under challenge in this Writ Petition, the Veterinary Hospital/Dispensary has already been shifted from Thycattusserry to Manappuram. The above submission was disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the Government Pleader was directed to verify and report as to whether the Veterinary Hospital is already shifted to Manappuram and also as to whether the premises at Thycattusserry has been surrendered back to the owner. Today when the case is taken up, there is no representation for the Panchayat. Learned Government Pleader submits that it is not correct to say that the hospital at Thycattusserry has been shifted to Manappuram. Only a small portion of the hospital at Thycattusserry has been shifted and the major portions are being retained at Thycattusserry itself. The Government Pleader submitted that the Panchayat is not paying rent to the owner of the building at Thycattusserry since the Panchayat is enthusiastic about implementing the order of the Ombudsman. 2. I have heard the submissions of Smt.Jeena Joseph, learned W.P.C.No.14354/07 - 2 - counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.V.Bose, learned counsel for the 7th respondent who filed complaint before the Ombudsman. 3. My attention was drawn by Smt.Jeena to Exts.P1 to P3 which are letters or directions from the Veterinary Department specifying the facilities which are absolutely necessary for a Veterinary Hospital, whether it be at Thycattusserry or at Manappuram. Counsel also submitted that most of the agriculturists who are to be the beneficiaries of the Veterinary Hospital belong to Thycattusserry area. The building at Manappuram recently constructed for accommodating the Veterinary Hospital does not have any facility to accommodate a Veterinary Hospital which satisfies the specifications in Exts.P1 to P3. 4. On going through the impugned order of the Ombudsman, it is seen that the Ombudsman has not taken into account the specifications of the Veterinary Department as discerned from Exts.P1 to P3l while ordering shifting of the hospital from Thycattusserry to Manappuram. It is also seen that the case that majority of the beneficiaries of the dispensary or the hospital belong to Thycattusserry area also has not been considered by the Ombudsman. Under these circumstances, I set aside Ext.P5 order and direct the Ombudsman to take a fresh decision in the matter. The W.P.C.No.14354/07 - 3 - petitioner is directed to file an application for impleadment before the Ombudsman and if any such application is filed by them within two weeks of his receiving copy of this judgment, the Ombudsman will allow that application. Fresh decision as directed above shall be taken with due regard to the specifications contained in Exts.P1 to P3. The status quo which obtains as of now, according to the learned Government Pleader is that the Veterinary Surgeon visits hospitals at Thycattusserry and Manappuram. That status quo shall continue till such time as the Ombudsman passes fresh orders pursuant to this judgment. Since the building at Thycattusserry is not surrendered to the landlord, the Panchayat is directed to discharge the arrears of rent, if any, due in respect of the building at Thycattussery and continue to pay the rent which falls due subsequently till the building is surrendered to the owner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE