IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10212 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.RAMAN PILLAI AGED 85 YEARS, RESIDING IN 5C, SKYLINE, PALACE COURT, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TARA RANI G.S., D/O.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 9C, SKYLINE, PALACE COURT, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CITY CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. HEALTH INSPECTOR, FORT CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CORPORATION COUNCIL, (HEALTH STANDING COMMITTEE), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4. CORPORATION COUNCIL, (HEALTH STANDING COMMITTEE), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. MR.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC FOR R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.10212 of 2010 (B) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner has obtained a licence from the 1st respondent in respect of M/s.Ayodhya Bhavan Coffee House. The allegation of the petitioners is that the 3rd respondent forcefully closed down their hotel on 20/11/2009. 2. The facts show that aggrieved by the closure of the hotel, the petitioners have moved an appeal before the Standing Committee of the Corporation and a complaint has also been filed before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. It is during the pendency of these proceedings, this writ petition has been filed, and the complaint of the counsel for the petitioners is that the Ombudsman has not so far considered their complaint and passed orders. 3. In view of the pendency of the proceedings before the authorities as noticed above, the petitioners cannot resort to parallel proceedings before this Court. The proper course that WP(C) No.10212/2010 -2- ought to have been adopted by the petitioners is to apprise the Ombudsman about the urgency of the situation and sought orders in the matter. If the petitioners had moved the Ombudsman in this behalf, I have no reason to think that the Ombudsman will not expedite the proceedings. 4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition leaving it open to the petitioners to move the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, in which event, I am sure that the Ombudsman will expedite orders on the application filed by the petitioners. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg