IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 34375 of 2005(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ CHENTHAMARAKSHAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, MAMBATTUMOOLA P.O. KALLAMMOOLA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SECRETARY, CHOKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHOKKAD, NILAMBOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE CHOKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CHOKKAD, NILAMBOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS FOR R4 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 34375/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - PHOTO COPY OF PAGE 37 OF THE ANNUAL PROJECT REPORT 2005-06 OF 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH. EXT.P2 - PHOTO COPY OF PAGE NO.35 OF THE ANNUAL PROJECT REPORT 2004-05. EXT.P3 - PHOTO COPY OF THE PUBLICATION DATED 7.11.05 IN CHANDRIKA DAILY DATED 7.11.05. EXT.P4 - PHOTO COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 23.11.2005. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 34375 OF 2005-P ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner was a member of the 5th respondent Panchayat. This Writ Petition was filed, challenging Ext.P3 notification issued by the 5th respondent Panchayat, which contains the various works to be completed during the year 2005-06. According to the petitioner, some of the works to be completed during 2005-06, as per Ext.P1 project report, were already shown in Ext.P2 project report for the previous year and completed. A re- notification of those completed works again during the year 2005-06, is for misappropriation of public funds. 2. The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit, in which the above allegations have been denied. It is also stated that the works which are again notified as per Ext.P3 were those which could not be completed during the previous year. So, the funds are shown as spilled over and the works are again notified. Therefore, there is nothing irregular about it, according to the Panchayat. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, stating that since portions of the works were completed in 2004-05, it is unnecessary to notify the WPC 34375/05 2 entire works for the subsequent year also. The Panchayat pointed out that for completion of the works in part, no bill was paid. The entire amount was paid only on completion of the work, that is during 2005-06. 4. In view of the above disputed position concerning facts, this Court is not justified in holding a roving enquiry into the matter. The petitioner can work out his remedy before the Ombudsman. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the Ombudsman, if so advised, for appropriate reliefs. All the contentions of the 5th respondent are kept open. 13th June, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/