IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21323 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- HASEENA, W/O.ASHRAF, 28 YEARS, NAMPI VEETTIL THEKKE PACHOLATHU HOUSE, KAYANNA PO., KOLOTHU VAYAL, KOORACHUNDU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE KOORACHUNDU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KOORACHUNDU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ATHIYODI PO., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS , KOYILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ - R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.21323/2008 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 10/11/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 02/01/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 04/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 10/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 02/07/2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING AND THE ADJACENT BUILDING. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21323/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Though notice has been served on the respondent Panchayat there is no representation on its behalf. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6, an order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, rejecting a petition filed by the petitioner herein. 3. According to the petitioner, she has constructed a commercial building jointly with her neighbour. Soon after the ground floor of her portion of the building was completed, she made an application to the respondent Panchayat for assigning number to the rooms in the ground floor. By Ext.P4 order of the Secretary of the respondent Panchayat, number was declined to be assigned. The reason stated in Ext.P4 was that, the petitioner had violated WP(c).No.21323/2008 2 Section 220-B, on the basis that sufficient clearance from the road was not provided for. 4. According to the petitioner, he had commenced construction much before the building rules were made applicable and that the Panchayat itself was not certain about the width of the road or its boundary. This plea of the petitioner is sought to be supported referring to Ext.P5, a communication issued by the Panchayat, to the Assistant Executive Engineer(Roads Divisions), Koilandy ,wherein it is stated that the Panchayat is not in possession of any document regarding the width and other measurements of the road in question. 5. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent. The second respondent had called for a report from the Deputy Director of Panchayat. The report apparently indicated six items of violations and straight away accepting the report, the appeal was dismissed by Ext.P6. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that, his neighbour who had undertaken construction along with the petitioner, has already competed the construction of 5 shop WP(c).No.21323/2008 3 rooms and that those buildings have already been numbered. It is stated that, though this contention of the petitioner was accepted by the Ombudsman, for no valid reason relief was declined to the petitioner. 6. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions impugning Ext.P6, for the present I am satisfied that in passing Ext.P6, there is violation of the principles of natural justice. The Panchayat declined to number of the building on the ground of violation of Section 220-B of the Panchayat Raj Act. This conclusion of the Panchayat is sought to be contradicted by the petitioner by referring to Ext.P5. It is on that basis, petitioner approached the 2nd respondent. However, Ombudsman had entered a finding that there are six violations. 7. The above finding of the Ombudsman is only on the basis of the report received from the Deputy Director of Panchayat. Counsel for the Panchayat submits that, if at all the Ombudsman wanted to rely on the report of the Deputy Director of Panchayat, the Ombudsman ought to have disclosed the contents therein to the petitioner and should WP(c).No.21323/2008 4 have given her an opportunity to contradict the conclusions therein. 8. According to the petitioner, the reasonable opportunity to explain the adverse findings against her, was denied by the 2nd respondent while passing Ext.P6. I feel that the petitioner is justified in the contentions now raised and for that reason I am inclined to quash Ext.P6. 9. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed the Ombudsman shall disclose to the petitioner the contends of the report from the Deputy Director of Panchayat, in order to enable the petitoner to file her objections and take a fresh decision in the matter after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing also. This shall be expeditiously. 10. In the meantime, I also direct that, the Panchayat shall number the rooms in the ground floor of the building in question, on a provisional basis and its continuance or otherwise will depend upon the final orders to be passed by the Ombudsman, in the manner as above. WP(c).No.21323/2008 5 Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.21323/2008 6