IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22801 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DILIP KUMAR PRABHULAL, AGED 57, S/O. LATE PRABHULAL NARANJEE, KALPATARU DOOR NO.13/1012,THRIKOVIL LANE, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, TO GOVT. LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CORPORATION OFKOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. 4. SARALA P. SHAH, W/O. RAMESH M. MEHTA, 8/189, SILK STREET, NEAR BANK OF INDIA, CALICUT-32. R1 BY GOVT. PELADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.22801 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has certain complaints about the manner in which a permit has been issued to the 4th respondent. He moved the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. The Ombudsman concluded essentially that the said issue need not be gone into by the Ombudsman. I say this because the Ombudsman has recorded in the last paragraph of the impugned Ext.P6 order that the consent mentioned in the petition has not been acted upon. That obviously means that any decision of the Corporation was not dependent on any consent, which itself is disputed by the petitioner as not one issued either by him or by his father. The last sentence of Ext.P6 order makes this abundantly clear because the learned Ombudsman leaves the petitioner with liberty to move under the criminal laws if he has a case that any criminal act is involved. It goes without saying that if any civil right is violated, he could take recourse to civil WPC.22801/09 Page numbers jurisdiction also under the laws. Obviously, Ext.P6 decision of the Ombudsman, not having answered any of the controversies between the parties, does not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking relief in accordance with law. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Ombudsman. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.14/8.