IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 5571 of 2005(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. I.K.NARAYANAN, KARSHAKA SANGAM, VADANAPPALLY PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE PRESIDENT, S/O. KUTTAN, INJIKATTU, VADANAPPALLY P.O., CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. 2. P.A.VELAPPU, KARSHAKA SANGHAM, VADANAPPALLY PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE SECRETARY, S/O. AYYAPPAUTTY, PUTHUPPALLY VEEDU, P.O.THRITHALLOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.C.M.SURESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRESIDENT, VADANAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VADANAPPALLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, VADANAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VADANAPPALLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. C.I.SEBASTIAN, PRESIDENT, VADANAPPALLY KARSHAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM PRESIDENT, VADANAPPALLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. P.R.MARY, SECRETARY, VADANAPPALLY KARSHAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM SECRETARY, VADANAPPALLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. THE KRISHI OFFICER, VADANAPPALLY KRISHI BHAVAN, VADANAPPALLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. R2 TO R6 BY ADV.MR.S.U.NAZAR BY ADV. MR.J.JULIAN XAVIER MR.FIROZ K.ROBIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.NO.5571/2005 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 13/10/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF O.P.NO.2384/2001 FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 13/07/2001. P3: COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 18/01/2005 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY 3RD RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 18/01/2005 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY ...DO.... RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5571 of 2005-L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioners submitted a complaint before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, raising allegations against the panchayat functionaries in relation to the implementation of a scheme which included the purchase of groundnut cakes. On the date on which Ext.P1 was passed, the petitioners were not present before the learned Ombudsman. They had, however, authorised an Advocate to appear on their behalf. The learned Ombudsman refused the counsel to appear on the ground that the petitioners had not obtained the permission to engage counsel. The Ombudsman was satisfied with the counter affidavit of the panchayat authorities and accordingly, it was held that there was no case of proved corruption or corrupt practices. WP(C)5571/2005 -: 2 :- 2.However, the learned Ombudsman further proceeded to hold that the complaint made by the petitioners was merely allegations and hence, they are liable to pay compensatory costs. The imposition of such costs was on a day on which the petitioners were absent and without giving them a notice to explain against such imposition. Beyond that is a fact that the mere finding that the activities were carried out appropriately under the scheme does not, by itself, invite a situation warranting imposition of compensatory costs. It would be inappropriate to deem malice and other vitiating elements in such process unless it is shown with fairly good supporting materials. Therefore, I am satisfied that ends of justice do not require the continued sustenance of the direction to pay the compensatory costs. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed quashing Ext.P1 to the extent it imposes compensatory costs of Rs.5,000/- on the WP(C)5571/2005 -: 3 :- petitioners. All consequential actions taken by the respondents to recover such costs will also stand quashed hereby. No costs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/170609