IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 38191 of 2002(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ C.K.MATHEW, CHANGASSERY VEEDU, CHANGALEERI P.O., MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KUMARAMPUTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUMARAMPUTHUR, MANNARKAD COLLEGE P.O., PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. SABU O., ONASSERIL VEEDU, CHANGALEERI P.O., MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD. SRI.BOBY AUGUSTINE FOR R3 SRI.N.RAGHURAJ FOR R4 SRI.A.V.RAVI FOR R4 SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY FOR R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008, ALONG WITH OP NO. 3795 OF 2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.64491/2002 IN OP. NO.38191/2002 DISMISSED 29.09.2008 SD/- KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DT. 18.7.2001 RECEIVED BY THE PETITION. P2:- COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DT. 30.7.2001 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT- PANCHAYAT. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 12.6.02 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT- PANCHAYAT. P4:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 5.6.2001 ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT. 11.11.02 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 18.7.02 IN OP. NO.1382/01 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ O.P. Nos. 38191 OF 2002 & 3795 OF 2003 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. In the latter case, there is an interim order permitting the completion of the work however staying the direction against the petitioners therein. The interest of the original petitioner in the former case is also protected by the interim order passed therein. 2. The main grievance appears to be that the orders have been passed without notice to the petitioners though they are the affected parties. That fact cannot be disputed also. Therefore, the impugned orders are quashed with a direction to the first respondent in the latter original petition to consider the matter afresh with notice to the affected parties also and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law thereon, expeditiously. These original petitions are disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. smp KURIAN JOSEPH, J. O.P.Nos.38191 OF 2002 & 3795 OF 2003 J U D G M E N T 29.09.2008