IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1070 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KOVAPRAVAN ACHUTHAN, S/O.PUNNACHERRY MADHAVI, AGED 83 YEARS, CHERUKUNNU AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CHERUKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHERUKUNNU,KANNUR 3. PALAKODDAN MAHAMOOD, S/O.MAMMEDKUNJI, PALAKODDAN HOUSE, P.O.MATTOOL, KANNUR. 4. THE CHERUKUNNU GRAMAPANCHAYATH COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, CHERUKUNNU GRAMAPANCHAYATH, CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR FOR R2 & 4 SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW FOR R2 & 4 SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN FOR R3 GP K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).1070/2010 ....................... Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had issued a building permit to the 3rd respondent which was later revoked at his instance. It is stated that aggrieved by the said order, the 3rd respondent moved the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Ombudsman, the Panchayat restored the building permit. Later, when the matter came up for orders before the Ombudsman, Ext.P6 order was passed, directing that copy of the proceedings of the Panchayat restoring the building permit to the 3rd respondent be served to all parties including the petitioner herein. 2. Petitioner's grievance in the writ petition is that Ext.P6 order of the Ombudsman directing the Panchayat to serve a copy of its proceedings has not been complied with. On 13.1.2010, this Court passed an order requiring the Panchayat to make available a copy of the order to the petitioner and it is complained that even that order has not been complied with. W.P.(C).1070/10 2 3. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavits. From the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent what emerges is that pursuant to Ext.P6 order of the Ombudsman rendered on 30.10.2009, Ext.P5 order was passed on 2.1.2010 and that Exts.P5 and P6 were communicated to the petitioner. It is stated that Ext.P5 is an order passed in pursuance to Ext.P6 and therefore the order of Ombudsman has been complied with. 4. As far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, he seeks a dismissal of the writ petition contending that there is absolutely no bonafides in the allegations of the petitioner. He has also produced various documents in support of this contention. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I am of the view that Ext.P6 order passed by the Ombudsman directing the Panchayat to communicate its decision to the petitioner was in order to enable the petitioner to pursue his remedies W.P.(C).1070/10 3 if he is aggrieved by the order of the Panchayat. According to the Panchayat, Ext.P5 is the order passed. Therefore if Ext.P5 is treated as an order passed, petitioner can seek his remedies against Ext.P5. It is so clarified. 6. As far as the contentions raised by the 3rd respondent are concerned, having regard to the nature of the relief sought in the writ petition, I do not think it necessary to decide on those disputed questions of facts. 7. Therefore, clarifying that Ext.P5 will be treated and accepted as an order passed by the Panchayat in pursuance to Ext.P6 order of the Ombudsman and leaving it open to the petitioner to seek his remedies, the writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs