IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 OP.No. 35074 of 2001(A) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SUDHAKARAN, SECRETARY, NELLANADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 607. 2. M. SUKUMARA KURUP, PRESIDENT, DO. DO. 3. REMANY P. NAIR, VICE PRESIDENT, DO. DO. 4. KEEZHAYIKONAM SOMAN, STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, DO. DO. 5. P. OAMANA, MEMBER, DO. DO. 6. P. CHANDRA SEKHARAN NAIR, ,MEMBER, DO. DO. 7. N.A. AZEEZ, MEMBER, DO. DO. 8. A. SREEDHARAN, MEMBER, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SMT.M.ISHA RESPONDENT(S): 1. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. G. JAYAKUMAR, KALLUMADAM, KOTTUKUNNAM P.O. VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 35074/2001. --------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 23-8-01. EXT.P2 COMPLAINT DT. 17-7-2000. EXT.P3 WRITTEN STATEMENT DT. 17-8-2000. EXT.P4 DECISION TAKEN BY PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE. EXT.P5 DECISION TAKEN BY PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE. EXT.P6 PANCHAYAT ATTENDANCE REGISTER. EXT.P7 LETTER DT. 21-7-1998. EXT.P8 CERTIFICTE DT. 29-6-1998. EXT.P9 GOVT. ORDER DT. 22-1-1998. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 35074 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 13th January, 2009. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are Secretary and members of the Nellanadu Grama Panchayat. On receipt of a complaint regarding corruption and mal- administration against the petitioners, the Ombudsman consisting of two members considered the complaint as O.P.No.68/2000, in which Ext. P1 order has been passed directing a vigilance enquiry in respect of two of the allegations raised against the petitioners. That is under challenge before me. 2. According to the petitioners, the petitioners had submitted sufficient evidence to disprove the allegations against them and while passing Ext. P1 order, none of the evidence furnished by the petitioner have even been adverted to in Ext. P1 order. According to the petitioners, there was not even a prima facie case made out before the Ombudsman for enabling the Ombudsman to come to even a conclusion that a further enquiry by the vigilance is necessary in the case. In the above circumstances, the petitioners seek quashing of Ext. P1. 3. I have considered the contentions of the petitioners in detail. 4. The Ombudsman has directed investigation in respect of two charges. First is that the petitioners authorised purchase of a property for a school belonging to the Panchayat, which property had no proper access and across which a 11 KV electric line passes. The second allegation is that several buildings constructed in the locality were constructed with permission from the the petitioner which do not specify the requisite margin from the public road. On both, the Ombudsman found that there is a prima facie case which requires further investigation and accordingly ordered vigilance enquiry. 5. I do not find any impropriety in the Ombudsman directing an enquiry at the hands of the vigilance in respect of the two allegations. O.P. No. 35074/01 -: 2 :- Admittedly, a property had been purchased for the school over which a 11 KV electric line passes. The Ombudsman on the basis of the evidence before them, came to the prima facie conclusion that a further enquiry is necessary. One of the members of the Ombudsman is a retired District Judge and I am not inclined to interfere with the prima facie finding in so far as the petitioners have not been finally found guilty but only a further enquiry had been ordered. Regarding the second allegation, the contention of the petitioners is that the Kerala Municipality Building Rules had not been made applicable to the said Panchayat at the relevant time. Even if the Building Rules were not made applicable at the relevant time, Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act would certainly be applicable at that time also, which requires three meters to be left from the margin of a public road for all constructions. That being so, in respect of the second allegation also, I do not find anything wrong with the prima facie finding of the Ombudaman. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge against Ext. P1 order. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners makes a prayer to direct the Ombudsman to forward all evidence produced by the petitioners to the vigilance at the time of enquiry. That is a very reasonable request. Accordingly, while upholding Ext. P1 order, I direct the Ombudsman to forward the materials placed before them by the petitioners also to the vigilance for conducting the enquiry as ordered in Ext. P1. The original petition is disposed of as above. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/