IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21763 of 2011(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH SERVICE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH), COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.MANILAL. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA LOKA AYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF LOK AYUKTA, NEW LEGISLATIVE BLOCK, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. H. ABDUL ASSIS, GENERAL SECRETARY, PUCL, PANACHAYIL HOUSE, MANGALLORE, KURUVAMOOZHI. P.O., ERUMELI, KOTTAYAM-686 509. 3. THE PROJECT ENGINEER, JILLA NIRMATHI KENDRA, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 21763 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/06/2009 OF THE LOK AYUKTA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN COMPLAINT NO.1009/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/01/2011 IN COMPLAINT NO.1009/2010. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/06/2011 IN COMPLAINT NO.1009/2010. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/07/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.3868/2007/H&FWD DATED 14/11/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21763 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August , 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P1, P3 and P4 orders of the first respondent. 2. Ext.P1 is an order passed by the first respondent in Complaint No.505/09 on 10th June, 2009. The complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent herein, for the establishment of Intensive Care Units in the Erumeli Community Health Centre and in Kanjirappally Taluk headquarters hospital respectively. 3. Before the Lok Ayukta second petitioner filed a statement of defence, stating that administrative sanction was already accorded and that the work has been entrusted to M/s Nirmithi Kendra. Although it was the case of the 2nd respondent that the work had been completed and that the units were functioning, that was W.P.(C) No. 21763 OF 2011 :2 : disputed and therefore Lok Ayukta directed the 2nd petitioner to see that the units are functioning in the hospitals properly, effectively and on a permanent basis. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows. “Director of Health Services(2nd respondent) filed statement of defence mentioning that on 14.11.08 administrative sanction was accorded to establishment ICC units at Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Kanjirappally and Community Health Centre, Erumeli, that work was entrusted to Messrs.Nirmithi Kendra for a total estimate of Rs.10 lakhs to 40 lakhs, that they have been completed and both the units are functioning at present. Petitioner filed replication stating that immediately after the Sabarimala season, the ICC units were closed and that from 20-1-2009 onwards both the units remain closed. The sanction for W.P.(C) No. 21763 OF 2011 :3 : the Units as per GO(RT) No.3868/07/HNPWD dated, 4.11.07 is for regular functioning of ICC units in both the hospitals. Petitioner prays that direction may be issued to the second respondent to see that these units function on a permanent basis and that it should not be closed abruptly, untold hardships to the patients. As the Government as per the aforesaid Government Order sanctioned regular functioning of the ICC units in these hospitals (Erumeli and Kanjirappally) the second respondent is directed to see that the ICC units do function in the said hospitals properly, effectively and on a permanent basis. With the above observations, petition is closed.” 4. The 2nd respondent filed yet another complaint which was registered as complaint No.1009/10. That W.P.(C) No. 21763 OF 2011 :4 : complaint was disposed of by Ext.P3 order dated 10th January, 2011 directing to comply with Ext.P1 order without any further delay. Accordingly, the complaint was posted to 14.3.2011 for action taken report. 5. The matter was again considered by the Lok Ayukta on 13th June 2011 and Ext.P4 order was passed recording the submissions of the 2nd petitioner that action taken report will be positively filed by the next posting date. It was also directed that in the event of non compliance, the 2nd respondent will appear and show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. With these directions the case was adjourned to 1-8-2011. 6. It appears that this order was also not complied with, as a result of which warrant of arrest has been ordered. It is at that stage this writ petition has been filed. 7. According to the learned Government Pleader what was conceived by the Government was establishment W.P.(C) No. 21763 OF 2011 :5 : of I.C.C. Unit, on a temporary basis and not a permanent unit. I am unable to accept this contention. A reading of Ext.P1 order shows that the Lok Ayukta has only acted upon the statement filed by the 2nd petitioner which did not say that the Unit will not be a permanent one. Although it is the case of the learned Government Pleader that in Ext.P2, it is stated that the I.C.C Unit was meant to be function only during Sabarimala season, I am not inclined to act upon the submission for the reason that in the statement filed before the Lok Ayukta, which is relied on in Ext.P1 order, the 2nd petitioner did not have such a case. 8. Even if the contention of the 2nd petitioner is that the Lok Ayukta committed a factual mistake is accepted, the remedy available to the 2nd petitioner was to seek correction of the alleged mistake by filing proper application in terms of the Kerala Lok Ayukta (Powers of Civil Court) Rules 1999. Not only that it was not done, W.P.(C) No. 21763 OF 2011 :6 : despite the repeated opportunities given, orders were not complied with. 9. The learned Government Pleader contended that power of the Lok Ayukta is only to pass orders of a recommendatory nature. However, a reading of Ext.P1 itself show that Lok Ayukta has only acted upon the statement filed by the 2nd petitioner and has not added anything of its own. Therefore, that contention of the learned Government Pleader only deserves to be stated and rejected. In the circumstances I do not find any illegality in the proceedings to interfere with the directions of the Lok Ayukta. Thus the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge