IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 16082 of 2008(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- V.K.JOHNY, VADKKUMCHERY HOUSE, MANIAPPRA P.O., ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. (PARTY IN PERSON) BY SRI.V.K. JOHNY (PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, OMBUDSMAN FOR THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, MANIAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANIAPRA, ALUVA TALUK. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D.(ROADS) ANGAMALI. 4. A.JAYAKRISHNAN, 5/128, NANTHANAM HOUSE, TEMPLE ROAD, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 16082 OF 2008 M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th June 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P7, an order vacating Ext. P6 interim order dated 9.4.2008. Ext.P7 order was passed taking note of the fact that the Deputy Director of Panchayats had reported that the objectionable construction was at a minimum distance of 3.4 metres. From the order dated 16.4.2008 made available by the petitioner it is seen that the report of the Deputy Director of Panchayats was pursuant to the order passed by the Ombudsman requiring him to visit the property at 11 a.m. on 17.4.2008 and to report as to whether for any portion of the building in question, the clearance is less than 3 metres. Pursuant to the said order, the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Ernakulam, had visited the property and it was on his report that the Ombudsman had entered the factual finding that the minimum distance was 3.4 metres. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner has not produced anything to indicate that the factual statement in Ext. P7 is W.P.(C) No.16082 OF 2008 -2- incorrect. On the other hand, what is relied on is the proceedings dated 16.4.2008 where the complaint of the petitioner that the clearance was less than 3.4 metres has been recorded. 3. Along with I.A. No. 7934/08, petitioner has produced the proceedings of the Ombudsman dated 3.6.2008 closing the petition, which discloses that the Assistant Director of Panchayat deputed by the Ombudsman had found the allegation of the petitioner to be partially true. It is also stated that the Deputy Director of Panchayats was again deputed and that the objectionable portion found has been demolished. It was on appreciation of these factual aspects the Ombudsman has found that for the available structures there is clearance of not less than 3.4 metres. 4. As already noticed, on the materials placed, this Court is not in a position to conclude that the findings of the Ombudsman are perverse for any reason. On the other hand, 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 including Ext.P10, the order closing the W.P.(C) No.16082 OF 2008 -3- petition. On the materials placed there is nothing to conclude that the Ombudsman has committed any error in passing the impugned orders. Writ petition is fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-