IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 8599 of 2003(W) ---------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. VARKEY VARGHESE, NOONOOTIL, N. MAZHUVANNOR P.O. (VIA), MUDAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. MATHEW K.M., KUDILIL VEEDU, N.MAZHUVANOOR P.O. (VIA), MUDAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P. THAJUDEEN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE MUZHAVANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MAZHUVANOOR, AIRAPURAM P.O., KEEZHILLAM, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR R1 BY ADV. SMT.BABY KURIAKOSE THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 8599/2003 : 2 : ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 14999/2003 IN O.P.NO. 8599/2003 DISMISSED 26.03.2008 SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. LRA 536270/2000/K DIS. DATED 19.06.2001 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 03.02.2003 IN O.P. 10/02. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.No. 8599 OF 2003-W = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008. = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T The order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, Ext. P3, is under challenge in this original petition. Ombudsman, as per the said impugned order dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners to withdraw the complaint filed by them and further directed the petitioners to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost to the Panchayath. 2. The matter relates to the functioning of a granite quarry in resurvey No.43/1,2,3,4,5. It appears that petitioners and other people from the locality were complaining about the illegal functioning of the quarry. It is averred in the original petition that as per Ext.P1, the Land revenue Commissioner rejected the appeal filed by the quarry operator whereby, the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate was upheld. The Additional District Magistrate had rejected the application for NOC for explosive licence. Thereafter the petitioners approached O.P.No. 8599 OF 2003 2 this Court by filing O.P.No. 794/02, challenging the explosive licence granted. Meanwhile, complaining about the licence granted to the quarry by the Panchayath, they approached the Ombudsman while the matter was pending here. They subsequently filed an application to withdraw the said complaint to pursue the original petition in O.P.No.794/02. 3. In Ext.P3, the Ombudsman took the view that the petitioner is in the habit of dragging the Panchayath to unnecessary litigations. It is in that view of the matter that the petition was dismissed and compensatory cost was ordered to be paid by the petitioner to the Panchayath. In O.P.No.794/02, by judgment dated 12.4.02, this Court directed the petitioners to challenge the relevant proceedings before the appropriate forum. Therefore it is not a case where the Panchayath was dragged into different forums at the hands of the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in O.P.No.794/02, the Panchayath was not a party and the parties therein were Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle, O.P.No. 8599 OF 2003 3 Chennai and Controller of Explosives, Chennai. Apart from them there were private parties who were the operators of the quarry. A perusal of the judgment in O.P.No. 794/02 shows that the Panchayath was not arrayed as a respondent therein. Even going by averments in the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayath in this original petition apart from the case before the Ombudsman, there was no other case pending against them as filed by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the finding by the learned Ombudsman that the petitioners were in the habit of dragging the Panchayath in unnecessary litigations appears to be incorrect. Even though Section 271 (K) of the Panchayathraj Act, confers power on the Ombudsman to award compensatory cost in appropriate cases, in view of the facts noted above, this is not a fit case where the court ought to have awarded. Sub Section (2) of the said provision provides that, “where the Ombudsman finds that the allegation contained in a complaint is without any substance or trivial in nature it may by order direct the complainant to pay the opposite party so much of the amount specified in the order by way of cost”. O.P.No. 8599 OF 2003 4 In this case actually, petitioners wanted withdrawal of the complaint. It is at this stage, cost was ordered. Therefore, there is no justification to direct the petitioner to pay costs to the Panchayath. Ext.P3 is therefore quashed. OP is allowed. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE bkn/-