IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 24272 of 2010(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DEVASSI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH, VELUTHEPILLY HOUSE, NEELEESWARAM P.O,KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL .K.VARGHESE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,(LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 670 001. 3. THE SECRETARY, MALAYATOOR-NEELESHSHWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALAYATOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682 801. 4. CLETUS, S/O.PAPPU, KOYIKKARA HOUSE, KALADY(VIA) NEELESHSHWARAM P.O, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 682 801. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN, R5 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW ABRAHAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.24272/2010-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE MILK DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OFFICER, ANGAMALY DTD. 23/02/2010. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT/UNDERTAKING SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MILK DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN DTD. 16/06/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM LITTLE FLOWER HOSPITAL, ANGAMALY DTD. NIL. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITION NO.46/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN DTD. 30/07/2010. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. A3 2829/2010 ISSUED BY THE SECETARY, MALAYATTOOR-NEELESWARAM PANCHAYAT DTD. 22/07/2010 WHICH WAS SERVED TO THE PETITIONER ON 29/07/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 24272 OF 2010 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2011 JUDGMENT When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition is limited to the early disposal of Ext.P5 review petition pending before the 2nd respondent. In this writ petition it is alleged that considering the poor financial condition of the petitioner the Milk Development Department selected him to their MSDP project and had supplied two cattles. As per the condition imposed by the Milk Development Department, the petitioner undertook to maintain the two cattles for a period of five years. Ext.P2 is the agreement/undertaking submitted by the petitioner to the Milk Development Department. It is averred that the petitioner and his family members are eking out their livelihood by maintaining the above-said two cattles. It is -2- W.P.(C).No.24272/2010 the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent filed a complaint before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions as petition No.1491/2008 alleging that the petitioner is maintaining two cattles in the petitioner's property and is causing nuisance to the 4th respondent. 2. The petitioner appeared before the Ombudsman on 24/10/2009. On 16/6/2010 the Ombudsman passed Ext.P3 order directing the Secretary of the Panchayat to seize all the cattles of the petitioner and put the same in auction and also directed to file a report on 18/8/2010. It is also averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was completely bedridden on 16/6/2010. He was admitted in the Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly on 10/6/2010 and was discharged only on 16/6/2010. Therefore, he was unable to present his case, when the matter was taken up by the Ombudsman on 16/6/2010. Ext.P4 is the medical certificate produced by the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner submitted Review Petition No.46/2010 to set aside the ex parte order. Ext.P5 -3- W.P.(C).No.24272/2010 is the copy of the review petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P5 is pending consideration. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition can be disposed of without going into the merits of the case by issuing a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 on merits. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant the relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to hear and dispose of Ext.P5 petition on merits, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The interim order passed by this Court shall continue till the disposal of the review petition by the 2nd respondent. All other contentions raised in the writ petition are left open. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.