IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12776 of 2004(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.A.RAHIMAN SAIT, ENGANDIYUR KUNDALLIYOOR POST 630 616, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) SRI.RATHISH VIJAYENDRAN SMT.VIDYA GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.A.HARISH BABU, POST KUNDALLIYOOR, TRICHUR DISTRICT 680 616. 2. P.T.HANEEFA, POST KUNDALLIYOOR, TRICHUR 680 616. 3. THE SECRETARY, ENGANDIYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TRICHUR. 5. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R3,R2 SRI.TONY MATHEW FOR R3 SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R1 R4 BY G.P. SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SKETCH EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED AGAINST FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS IN FORM A DATED 15.6.2001 EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ESTIMATE FOR THE FORMATION OF CHETTUA-PANDIPPADM ROAD, IN WARD NUMBER 6 OF ENGANDIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DATED 20.8.2001 EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIFTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 3.2.2004 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 13.2.2001 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 2.1.2004 EXT.P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 3.2.2004 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 12776 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner has filed petition before Ombudsman stating that third respondent-Panchayath diverted funds ear-marked for construction of a road for some other purpose that is for construction of a different road. However, Ombudsman on enquiry found that the Panchayath had appropriated the funds for the purpose for which it was sanctioned. Since petition was found to be frivilous, Ombudsman awarded personal cost of Rs. 1000/- each to respondents 1 and 2 in the complaint. This Court admitted the WPC in 2004 and granted stay against recovery. Even before this Court the petitioner challenged the identity of the road for which amount is spent. I do not think there is any need for this Court to consider the identity of the road because Ombudsman entered a finding based on the report of Deputy Director of Panchayaths. Respondents 1 and 2 who are respondents in the complaint have not chosen to appear and defend the case. I am of the view that respondents 1 and 2 are not interested in the matter probably because 2 cost of litigation will be more than the benefit they claim under the order of the Ombudsman. I therefore allow the WPC vacating Ext.P8 order with regard to order of cost in favour of respondents 1 and 2. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3