IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 7585 of 2005(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.CHERIAN, S/O.ABRAHAM, AMBAZHACHALIL HOUSE, VARAPPETTY P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY XAVIER. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VARAPPETTY P.O,. KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE PRESIDENT, P.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, VARAPPETTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PLAKKOTTAYIL VEEDU, VARAPPETTY P.O. KAKKATTOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. A.N.PADMINI AMMA, MEMBER, WARD VII, ARACKAL VEEDU, VARAPPETTY P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. PIOUS ANTONY, STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, VARAPPETTY PANCHAYATH, PANICHIKUDI VEEDU, KOZHIPPILLY P.O. 5. T.C.YACOB, THELAKKATT VEEDU, VARAPPETTY P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW, ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.7585/2005-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS AS O.P. NO. 364/03. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE OMBUDSMAN IN O.P. NO. 364/03 DTD. 01/12/2003. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 14/01/2004 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7585 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 18th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T One of the main grievance in the writ petition is regarding the cost imposed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, on a complaint filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is a practising Advocate. It is seen from the order that there was no basis for the allegations, and hence only the order regarding costs. Having gone through the pleading in the original petition, it cannot be said that the petitioner pursued the grievance before the Ombudsman with any motive. He was only pursuing the lawful course. Hence, there is no justification for imposition of cost on the petitioner. Accordingly, the order regarding imposition of cost is vacated. The writ petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7585 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 18th July, 2008.