IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 17759 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- EZHUPUNNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ERAMALLOOR P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL RESPONDENT: ---------------- JOSEPH JOSEPH, MURIKKUMTHARA HOUSE ERAMALLOOR ,CHERTHALA, ALAPPZHA DIST. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 17759 OF 2008 L ==================== Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner Panchayat is challenging Ext.P10. 2. Ext.P10 is an order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions as early as on 18th of October, 2007. A reading of Ext.P10 also shows that the Ombudsman had already passed an order on 31/10/06 which was reconsidered following the judgment of this court in WP(C) No.31395/06 and that after such reconsideration the order dated 31/10/2006 was affirmed by Ext.P10. 3. Thus effectively what is challenged by the petitioner is the order of the Ombudsman issued as early as on 31/10/2006. In my view, the writ petition now filed by the Panchayat challenging the aforesaid order, is highly belated and is only to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. 4. That apart, what is urged by the counsel for the petitioner is that in the construction undertaken by the respondent, he has violated Section 220(B) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. I am not inclined to entertain this plea raised by the petitioner for the reason that though the WPC 17759/08 :2 : Panchayat was also a party to the orders dated 31/10/06 and Ext.P10 order dated 18th of October, 2007, this contention is not seen raised by the Panchayat before the Ombudsman. For that reason also, this writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp