IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24912 of 2009(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- U.V.THOMAS, SON OF VARKEY, ULLATTIKKULAM HOUSE, MUNJELI, WEST CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. MR.T.K.VENUGOPALAN, MR.SHIBU JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. U.V.MARTIN, SON OF VARGHESE, COUNCILLOR, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, OOKKEN HOUSE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR. 2. M.N.SASIDHARAN, CHAIRMAN, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR. 3. THE SECRETARY, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR. 4. SAJAN FRANCIS, PADIKKAL HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR. 5. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 BY ADV. MR. M.P. ASHOK KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.24912 of 2009-H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges a decision of a municipality in relation to acquisition of a piece of land for a bus stand. The plea was that the land was originally acquired for a cattle market, however that, it was later proposed to be put to use for the bus stand. That challenge failed before the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions who found that the municipality's proposal to establish a bus stand in the 1.71 acres acquired earlier for providing a cattle market stood with the approval of the Government and was covered by proper resolution of the municipality. It was also noticed that a civil suit was pending in the Munsiff's Court, Chalakkudy. The learned Ombudsman issued the impugned Ext.P7 order on WP(C)24912/09 -: 2 :- 10.11.2008. The Secretary of the Office of the learned ombudsman is seen to have issued copy of the order on 20.11.2008. At this distance of time, on 28.8.2009, I do not find any ground for this Court to extend its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to entertain a challenge against Ext.P7 which does not visit the petitioner with any adverse civil consequences. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/170909