IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35750 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANNAMMA MATHEW PANICKER, AGED 72 YEARS, H.NO.1/536-A,RELCON GARDENS, VILLA 2B, PALACHUVADU, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI-30, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT RAPHAEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECREARY TRIKKAKARA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE MANAGER, REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT & COMMERCIAL AGENCIES (P) LTD. 35/3078 H/1ST FLOOR, PUKALAKKATTU VOMPLEX, THAMMANAM ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. ERNAKULAM. 3. RAJESH THOMAS JOSEPH, S/O.LATE K.J.THOMAS, KIZHAKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA - 12. ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.35750 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions complaining that her neighbour, the third respondent has a building built for him by the second respondent in such a manner as the rain water that falls on that building would splash back on to the petitioner's building. The learned Ombudsman obtained the report through Deputy Director of panchayats and found that the petitioner is equally at fault and the situation could be rectified only if both the petitioner and the third respondent break down their respective sunshade. The learned Ombudsman accordingly directed the petitioner, who is the complainant before the Ombudsman to break down her sunshade and then report so that third respondent could Wpc 35750/09 2 be directed to break down his sunshade. The directions issued by the learned Ombudsman are purely on the disputed facts and based on the findings rendered on the basis of the report of the Deputy Director of Panchayats on whom no allegation of malafide or malice could be attributed. Under such circumstances, I do not find any ground for interference in exercise of the authority under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/18/12