IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18961 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SECRETARY, KANIYAMPATTA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KANIYAMPATTA P.O, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ARAKKA SHAMEER, S/O.MOOSA, ARAKKA VEEDU, MKARIYAMPATTA P.O, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, POVERTY ALLEVIATION UNIT, WAYANAD, (FORMERLY DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY), KALPETTA, NORTH WAYANAD-673 122. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LMS COMPOUND THIRUVANANATHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE FOR R1 SRI.P.K.VARGHESE FOR R1 GP K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).18961/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner, the Secretary of a Grama Panchayat is seeking a direction to quash Ext.P1, an order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions directing payment to the contractors. According to the petitioner, there is dearth of funds and that funds should come from the 3rd respondent and that in the absence of such allotment, 2nd respondent ought not to have passed the order requiring it to make payment. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner only awarded the work to the 1st respondent Contractor and if so, the primary responsibility for payment is that of the 1st respondent. That apart, it is also seen that the Government have also issued Ext.R1 (a) order dated 1.9.2008 directing payment to contractors like the 1st respondent in the manner as indicated therein. In such circumstances, I see no justification to entertain a challenge against Ext.P1. W.P.(C).18961/08 2 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner informs that funds for the period till 31.3.2010 have already been allocated and therefore it is not possible for the Panchayat to disburse the funds as ordered in the impugned order. It is assured that necessary allocations will be made and disbursement will be made to the contractor, immediately after 1.4.2010. 4. Having regard to the above facts, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the payment due to the 1st respondent shall be disbursed as undertaken above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs