IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 30155 of 2006(M) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.A. JOSEPH, S/O. ANTHAPPAN, CHEETHAMPARAMBIL, VADUTHALA, KOCHI-23. BY ADV. MR.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDING, KOCHI. 2. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDLR3: SRI. P.R. JOSEPH STANLY, PALAKKAPILLY, VADUTHALA, KOCHI – 23, ERNAKULAM. (ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS PER ORDER DT.15/11/2006) ADVS. MR.K.C.ELDHO FOR R3 MR.P.R JOSEPH STANLEY MR.PRAVEEN K. JOY FOR R1 MR.PRAVEEN K.JOY,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION FOR R1 MS.ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R1 MR. S. RAMESH BABAU MR. M.A.ASIF GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30155 of 2006 PETITINR'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD 19.10.04 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD 28.11.2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P3: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD 17.1.06 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF R1. EXT.P4: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD 7.2.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.D.O. EXT.P5: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD.3.1.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER AND THE C.I. OF POLICE. EXT.P6: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD 22.2.2006 FILED BY JOSEPH STANLY BEFORE R2. EXT.P7: COPY OF OBJECTINS FILED BY PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DTD 8.5.06. EXT.P9: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD 22.5.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P9(a): COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P10: COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DTD 30.5.06. EXT.P11: COPY OF A/D CARD EVIDENCING THE RECIEPT OF EXT.P10. EXT.P12: COPY OF REPLY ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P13: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD 11.7.06 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 17.8.2006 PASSED BY R2. EXT.P15: COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.1676/2004 EXT.P16: COPY OF WRITTEN STAEMENT IN O.S.1676/2004 EXT.P17: COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. EXT.P18: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD 5.5.07 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P19: COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY R1 ACKNOWLEDGING RECIEPT OF EXT.P18 WP(C).No. 30155 of 2006 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a): COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.14779/04. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.19247/2004 DTD 30.7.2004. EXT.R3(c): COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OS NO.1676/2004 DTD 26.8.2006 OF 1ST ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.30155 OF 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of MAY, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P14 order of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, which reads thus: “The complaint of the petitioner is that in Ward No.31 of Cochin Corporation, in Vaduthala Market, a thodu was going at the end of the Ganapathi Temple road. But that thodu was not properly maintained and filling soil by the persons residing nearby disrupts the flow of water. The petitioner has submitted that the Corporation has taken steps to clean the thodu and restore the flow of water. In view of this, no further order is necessary in this case. The petition is, therefore, closed. However, I make it clear that whenever the flow of water is disrupted, necessary steps should be taken by the Corporation to clear the thodu and the flow of water should be restored”. The petitioner's complaint in this writ petition is that in the process of cleaning the canal, the officers of the Corporation have committed excesses in destroying trees and other cultivation of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, although the petitioner had filed Ext.P13 complaint before the Ombudsman, while passing Ext.P14 order, the Ombudsman failed to consider W.P.(c)No.30155/06 2 the complaints of the petitioner in respect thereof. Four years have already passed. It is impossible now to ascertain whether any excesses have been committed by the officers of the Corporation in the process of cleaning the canal. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this writ petition may be disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue his complaint before the appropriate authorities. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the above liberty. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.30155/06 3 W.P.(c)No.30155/06 4