IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 18461 of 2003(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MAVOOR VIJAYAN, S/O. T.SANKARAN NAIR, `KICHOUSE', MAVOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KUNNAMANGALAM BLOCK, KUNNAMANGALAM. 2. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (GENERAL), KOZHIKODE. 3. KUNNAMANGALAM BLOCK PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 4. P.BALAKUMAR, S/O. RAMAN NAIR, AYANIKKAD, MAVOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. K.T.SHAMEER BABU, S/O. ALIKUTTY, KAIKALAMTHODY, MAVOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. V.S.RANJITH, EDAVALATH, CHERUPPA P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV MATHEW VADAKKEL ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA FOR R5 & 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WP(C) 18461/2003) PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 A COPY OF THE PROJECT NO.218 OF THE KUNNAMANGALAM BLOCK PANCHAYAT. EXT.P2 A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF FACILITATION committee CONVENED ON 11.1.2000 AND ITS DECISIONS. EXT.P3 A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 21.4.2001. EXT.P4 A COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 25.7.2002. EXT.P5 A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN IN O.P.1532/2001 DT. 7.8.2002. EXT.P6 A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE OMBUDSMAN IN O.P.1532 OF 2001 DT 21.4.2003. EXT.P7 A COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B 298/2002 DT. 2.6.2003 OF R1. EXT.P8 A COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY R2 DT. NIL. EXT.P9 A COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2.6.2003 IN O.1532 OF 2001 OF HONOURABLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, TVM. EXT.P10 A COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT, RELEVANT PARAGRAPH 14 OF R2, PANCHAYAT. lgk THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 18461 OF 2003 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MAY, 2009 JUDGMENT As part of Peoples Planning Programme 1999-2000, the petitioner was the Convener to conduct a camp in Dramatics and Poetry. Whatever be the allegations regarding the quality of that programme, the Performance Audit Committee concluded that an amount of Rs.48,000/- is lost in the matter. On proceedings before the Ombudsman for local self government institutions, a direction was issued to recover that amount from the President and the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. They, in turn, proceeded to realise it from the petitioner who was the Convener of that committee. The panchayat did not institute any suit on any allegation on the basis of which the panchayat could realise any amount either as damages or compensation from the petitioner. When they proceeded to initiate recovery steps under the Revenue Recovery Act, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Even if the Ombudsman had directed that the amounts WP(C) 18461/2003 2 due to the panchayat be realised from the President and the Secretary, the petitioner could not have been saddled with that responsibility, except by due process of law, the Ombudsman being not authorised by the legislature to pass any such direction to recoup the money. Even if there is such a direction, that could be only enforced by notifying the petitioner of any proposal to recover and after hearing him in that regard. This has not been done. Hence writ petition is allowed, quashing Exts.P7 and P9, leaving the respondents 1 to 3 with liberty to take appropriate action if found necessary, in accordance with law and after giving opportunity of being heard. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/27/5