IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12003 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MALABAR AQUA FARMS LTD,. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUILDING NO.12/560, BEACH ROAD, MANJESWAR, KASARGOD BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO - GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPT., GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TVM. 2. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT - INSTITUTIONS, TVM. 3. THE MANJESWAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJESWAR P.O., KASARGOD 4. THE SECRETARY, MANJESWAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MANJESWAR P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY SPL. GP SRI.C.M. SURESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).12003/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT Exts.P1 and P2 are the proceedings of the respondent Panchayat granting lease deed to 118 Acres of river puramboke to the petitioner Company for a period of ten years from 17.9.1993. It is stated that the period of Exts.P1 and P2 expired in the year 2003 and by Ext.P3 resolution passed by the Panchayat on 8.12.1997, lease was resolved to be renewed for a further period of ten years from 17.9.2003. 2. However, while the resolution was pending with the Government for sanction, 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4 notice requiring the petitioner to vacate from the land on the basis that the period of lease as originally granted had expired. At that stage, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C). 4491/2004. When the said writ petition was taken up for consideration, it was submitted on behalf of the Panchayat that Ext.P3 resolution referred to above was cancelled. Taking note of the above stand of the Panchayat, this Court disposed of that writ petition by Ext.P5 judgment leaving it open to the petitioner W.P.(C).12003/10 2 to pursue its grievances against the resolution of the Panchayat cancelling Ext.P3 by making an appropriate application to the Government. Based on the direction in Ext.P5 judgment, the petitioner obtained a copy of Ext.P6 resolution and filed Ext.P7 representation before the Government. That representation was treated as one filed under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (in short 'the Act'), and required under Section 191(2) of the Act, the matter was referred to the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions for report. While the issue was pending before the Ombudsman, by Ext.P9 resolution passed by the Panchayat on 31.3.2006, lease was resolved to be extended for a further period of 25 years subject to the conditions mentioned therein. However, that resolution was subsequently cancelled by the Panchayat by Ext.P13 resolution. 3. In the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 referred to above, the Ombudsman submitted Ext.P16 report under Section 191(2) of the Act to the Government. In the meanwhile, aggrieved by Ext.P13 resolution cancelling Ext.P9 extending the lease by 25 years, petitioner again moved the Government by filing Ext.P17. W.P.(C).12003/10 3 It is during the pendency of these proceedings, the writ petition has been filed mainly aggrieved by the findings of the Ombudsman as contained in Ext.P16 report and the main prayer is to quash the report. 4. In my view, the writ petition is premature for the reason that Ext.P7 representation was treated as one made under Section 191 of the Act against Ext.P6 resolution. It was on receipt of the representation Government called for the report of the Ombudsman as required under Section 191(2) of the Act. On receipt of the report, it is for the Government to consider Ext.P7 duly adverting to the materials available before it including Ext.P16 report of the Ombudsman and take a decision. The petitioner can be aggrieved only after the Government takes such a final decision on Ext.P7 which is yet to be done by the Government. Therefore, the challenge against Ext.P16 report at this stage is premature and for that reason, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P16 report of the Ombudsman. 5. However, in view of the pendncy of Ext.P7 representation, it W.P.(C).12003/10 4 is directed that the Government shall consider Ext.P7 with notice to the petitioner and adverting to the materials available before it and a final decision in the matter shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. 6. Insofar as Ext.P17 is concerned, that again is an application made by the petitioner under Section 191 of the Act, aggrieved by Ext.P13 resolution cancelling Ext.P9. Having regard to the pendency of the representation, it is directed that the Government shall consider the matter as provided under Section 191 of the Act, as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs