IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4578 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SASINDRAKUMAR P.O., S/O. KELAPPAN, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUS, PUTHUR P.C., VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN, PARAMEL, PUTHUR P.O., VADAKARA TLUK, KOZHIKODE. 2. VADAKARA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST. 3. THE HONOURABLE OBDUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.4578 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of the Ombudsman, which reads thus: “Hearwd both sides. The report of Finance Inspection Wing shows that the 2nd respondent has made structural changes to the building. It is for the 1st respondent to initiate action under the Municipalities Act. The report further shows that there is reluctance on the part of Municipal Officers to provide required files for inspection and even after lot of persuasion by PWD Officers, only one file was actually handed over. He has also made an observation that it can be presumed that the officers of Vadakara Municipality have deliberately misplaced the files. The Secretary of the Municipality says that the person in charge of Town Planning files is one T.M.Mukundan, who is still working in the Municipal Office, Vadakara. He is impleaded as additional 3rd respondent and asked to file a statement, as to the disappearance of file. In the mean time Director of Vigilance Investigations will also be requested to make appropriate enquiries with regard to disappearance of file and file a report in 6 months. Post on 18.3.2009 for statement of additional 3rd respondent and report of action taken against the 2nd respondent for unauthorised construction” 2. I was not inclined to entertain the challenge against Ext.P6 in so far as it is not a final order and the matter is still pending with the Ombudsman. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points that in Ext.P6 order since there is a direction to the 3rd respondent before the Ombudsman to report the action taken against the petitioner for unauthorised construction, the petitioner apprehends that on the strength of Ext.P6 order the 3rd respondent therein may take coercive proceedings for demolition of the petitioner's building without complying with the procedure prescribed under the Act for the w.p.c.4578/09 2 said purpose. I am of opinion that the petitioner can raise all his contentions before the Ombudsman himself in the proceedings in which the petitioner is also a party. Even for unauthorized construction the authorities under the Kerala Municipality Act can take action only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. The Ombudsman has only directed the 3rd respondent before him to report the action taken against the 2nd respondent for unauthorised construction. That action can only be in accordance with the procedure under the Act, which requires issuing of a provisional order calling for objections of the petitioner and passing of a final order. I have no reason to suspect that the 3rd respondent would on the basis of Ext.P6 take action without complying with the procedure. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take up the matter with the Ombudsman appropriately by filing pleadings before him, this writ petition is closed. If the petitioner takes up the matter with the Ombudsman, I am sure that the Ombudsman would consider his contentions also before taking a final decision in the matter. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.4578/09 3