IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23796 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THUTHIYOOR MILK PRODUCING AND MARKETING SOCIETY, REGD. NO. 358/85 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT REV. FR. JOSE THACHIL VICAR OF ST. JOSEPH'S CHURTH, THUTHIYOOR, KAKKANAD KOCHI. 2. SECRETARY SRI. BABU PAUL P.P., PARAVARA, THITHIYOOR CSEZ P.O., KOCHI-37. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH ARAYAKUNNEL SRI.VARGHESE PARAMBIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY , LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THRIKKAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD. BY SC S SHANAVAZ KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 23702 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NOs.23702, 23796, 21733, 21816, 21513 & 22121 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT These writ petitions and the procedure adopted by this court abundantly show that the writ jurisdiction is often invoked when there are effective alternate remedies available. 2. These matters raise claims for occupation rights of shop rooms in a shopping complex that has been newly constructed by the Thrikkakara Panchayat. Some of the petitioners assert that they are entitled to preference by way of rehabilitation. The panchayat had a list of persons entitled for rehabilitation. Those rooms which would be available after rehabilitation procedure would have to be necessarily auctioned off to generate the maximum finance for the panchayat in terms of the laws. The list of those entitled to rehabilitation is also challenged. The question whether a particular person was occupying a particular parcel of land or a room at a given point of time, to be eligible for rehabilitation or not, is indisputedly, a question of fact. On the assertion of such a person and its denial by the panchayat, it Wpc 23796/09 & conn, 2 becomes impossible for the writ court to adjudicate such issues. 3. The Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, a unique institution under the laws governing Local Self Government Institutions in Kerala, has the necessary spread of jurisdiction to look into all cases of mal administration and all other relevant allegations including assertions as to wrongful denial, as also assertions, as to wrongful inclusion or conferment of any benefit of any scheme of the panchayat. Therefore these bunch of matters were referred by this court to the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions as per common order dated 5.8.2009, requesting the learned Ombudsman to hear the parties and to forward a report to this court. That exercise has been undertaken in the shortest possible time, that is, ten days. This shows not only the efficacy of the office of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions as an alternate mechanism, but also shows that the said mechanism would be more fruitful than scouting this court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, even for matters which fall within the statutory powers of the learned Ombudsman. 4. As of now, all parties agree that the learned Wpc 23796/09 & conn, 3 Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions has considered the rival contentions and submissions. There is no objection to that report, as such. The parties appear to have a few more complaints. One is that the scheme, on the basis of which, allotment was made, was not made known to the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and the learned Ombudsman was not apprised of the existence or otherwise of a scheme. This gets narrowed down to the plea that the list was unauthorisedly prepared. Obviously, the identity of the persons to be included or excluded cannot be decided by this court. It is therefore that the learned counsel, in unison, submitted that guidelines may be issued by this court. I am afraid that within the parameters of writ jurisdiction, it may not be possible for the writ court to reach out to the ground realities and issue guidelines. This matter can also be looked into by the learned Ombudsman and appropriate directions could be issued. 5. To enable the parties to have resolution of any further surviving dispute, it is ordered that the report of the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions as forwarded to this court is accepted and incorporated as part of the records Wpc 23796/09 & conn, 4 of this case and would stand appended to this judgment. With this, these writ petitions stand closed, without prejudice to the contentions of the parties and with a direction to the panchayat to act in terms of the directions of the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. The parties are also granted liberty to move the learned Ombudsman for any further relief, including by way of clarifications or otherwise. The learned Ombudsman would specifically give an opportunity to the petitioner in WP(C)21816 of 2009 who states that there is really no scheme at all. Writ petitions ordered accordingly, leaving open all other issues and it is directed that all allotments will be subject to further orders of the learned Ombudsman. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/31/8