IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 23657 of 2008(N) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- THE SECRETARY, ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, ATTINGAL, ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. JAMES KAPPAN, ARCHITECH, JAMES KAPPAN AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, KAPPAN COURT VILLA, CIVIL STATION, ST.MARY'S ROAD, PALAI P.O. KOTTAYAM. 2. HONOURABLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 23657 OF 2008 N ==================== Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions on a claim made by the 1st respondent, an architect engaged by the petitioner Municipality for the construction of a bus stand and shopping complex. The justification for non payment in terms of Ext.P1 agreement is that the payment as per the schedule in Ext.P1 agreement is subject to Clause 3 thereof. This contention of the petitioner has been appreciated by the Ombudsman and it was held that payment is not subject to Clause 3, which requires an architect to make alteration or modification as suggested by the Chief Engineer, Technical. 2. The view taken by the Ombudsman in Ext.P8 is perfectly a possible one and if an authority has taken a view which is a possible one, this court will not be justified in upsetting the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp