IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23796 of 2008(G) PETITIONERS: 1. T.DHAS, FORMER WARD MEMBER OF TAIFORD WARD, ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ELAPPARA.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, RESIDING AT BONAMI ESTATE, FAIR FIELD.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. C.A.CHANDY, FORMER U.D.CLERK, ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ELAPPARA.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AS SECRETARY, AYYAPPANKOVIL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. S.THANGAMANI, PART TIME NURSERY TEACHER, ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ALAPPARA.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE RESPONDENTS: 1. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMEN INSTITUTIONS, BARTON HILL BUNGLOW, KUNNUKUZHI.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI. 3. CHERMAKANI, TAIFORD ESTATE, FAIR FIELD, ELAPPARA.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 501. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.R. SABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 23796/2008. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 2-8-2006. EXT.P2 COMPLAINT DT. 31-12-2005. EXT.P3 PETITION DT. 18-8-2006. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 19-8-2006. EXT.P5 ORDER DT.11-12-2007. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 23796 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th September, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners' contention is that Exts. P 4 and P5 orders had been passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram directing initiation of prosecution against the petitioners without complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 271P of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. According to them, the issue is covered by the decision in Achuthan v. State of Kerala, 2004 (3) KLT 912, which lays down that without conducting an investigation and entering a prima facie finding against the accused, the Ombudsman cannot direct initiation of prosecution. The petitioners also submit that petitioners 2 and 3 were not heard before passing orders. The petitioners therefore challenge Exts.P 4 and P5 orders as violative of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 2. I am of opinion that the petitioners should first take up the matter with the Ombudsman. Accordingly, if the petitioners file a suitable petition before the Ombudsman in O.P.No. 7/2006, the Ombudsman will hear the petitioners and take appropriate decision in the matter, after considering the contentions of the petitioners on the basis of Section 271P of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the decision referred to by the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/