IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37160 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.JOHNY, VADAKKUMCHERRY HOUSE, MANJAPPRA.PO, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.JOHNY (PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, OMBUDSMAN FOR THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, MANJAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH MANJAPRA, ALUVA TALUK. 3. THE ASSISTAZNT ENGINEER, P.W.D.(ROADS), ANGAMALI. 4. A.JAYAKRISHNAN, 5/128,NANTHANAM HOUSE, TEMPLE ROAD, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.37160 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner appearing as party in person is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions whereby the petitioner’s application to reconsider earlier order Ext.P3 has been rejected. The petitioner approached the Ombudsman with a complaint that the 4th respondent has made a construction for the purpose of starting a bar hotel in violation of Section 220(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act and the construction is without leaving three metres from the road lying adjacent to the property in question. Originally the Ombudsman granted a stay against continued construction. Thereafter the Ombudsman got the distance measured through the Deputy Director of Panchayats . The Deputy Director submitted a report stating that the minimum distance is 3.4 metres. On the basis of that report, the Ombudsman by Ext.P3 order vacated the interim order and posted the case for further hearing. The petitioner challenged that order before this Court W.P.(c) No.37160/08 2 by filing W.P.(C) No.16082/08. In that writ petition, this Court passed Ext.P4 judgment upholding Ext.P3 order of the Ombudsman, but made an observation that if the petitioner has anything to support his plea that this finding is factually incorrect, it is for him to seek appropriate modification of the orders passed by the Ombudsman. But again this Court held that on the material placed there is nothing to conclude that the Ombudsman has committed any error in passing the impugned orders. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman by Ext.P8 order rejected the petition with costs of Rs.1,000/- to the 4th respondent. The petitioner is challenging that order. According to the petitioner, now as per the measurement done by the Taluk Surveyor, the building itself is in puramboke. The petitioner had no such case before the Ombudsman earlier. It is a totally new case before the Ombudsman. Initially the only complaint of the petitioner was that the construction is without leaving 3 metres between the road and the construction. In any event, Ext.P8 order is only in the nature of an interim order. Nothing is sated by the petitioner as to what transpired subsequent to Ext.P3. If the Ombudsman has not yet passed final orders in W.P.(c) No.37160/08 3 the matter, it is for the petitioner to place the materials before the Ombudsman while final orders are passed. In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P8 order. However, taking a lenient view, I delete that portion of the order, whereby the cost of Rs.1,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c) No.37160/08 4