IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2184 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSE,AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.PRABHAKARAN, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU,KUTTICHAL.P.O,NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. KUTTICHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,KUTTICHAL.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 574. 3. D.VIJAYAN,LEKHA BHAVAN, KARUMBHOOTHATHAN PARA,KUTTICHAL.P.O,NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.2184 of 2010 (W) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P7 by which the 1 st respondent has directed the Panchayat to implement Ext.P6, an order passed by the Panchayat on 09/09/2009 requiring the partitioner to demolish and remove the unauthrised structure allegedly constructed by him. The petitioner says that the structure mentioned in Ext.P6 is a hut having an area of 450 square feet constructed by a Social Organisation. 2. Irrespective of the contentions raised by the petitioner, fact remains that Ext.P6 order of the Panchayat has not been challenged by him so far. If that be so, no fault is found on the Ombudsman in having issued Ext.P7 directing implementation of Ext.P6. 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was on account of the ignorance of the petitioner that Ext.P6 was left unchallenged. It is also reported that if the house is to be WP(C) No.2184/2010 -2- demolished the petitioner will have no roof to sleep under. According to the learned counsel steps are being taken to seek remedies against Ext.P6 and that in the meanwhile, if the construction is demolished and the matter is reported to the Ombudsman as directed in Ext.P7, prejudice will be caused. 4. In view of the facts as stated before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel it is only appropriate that the petitioner will be given a breathing time to enable him to work out his remedies against Ext.P6. Therefore, I direct that Exts.P6 & P7 will be deferred for a period of two weeks from today, and that in the meanwhile, it will be open to the petitioner to seek his remedies against Ext.P6. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 & 2 for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg