IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35083 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.KRISHNA MOHAN, AGED 42 LATE PURUSHOTHAMAN, VADAKKE MADOM, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. GOPALAKRISHNAN, ANJALI NIVAS, PEROR, THATTARKONAM P.O. KOLLAM. 5. NATARAJAN, MANANTHAWADI HOMOEO HOSPITAL, MANANTHAVADI P.O. WAYANAD. 6. KANAKAVALLY, VADAKKE MADOM, MULLAKAL, ALAPPUZHA 7. ANANTHAVALLI KAVINTE VADAKKETHIL, VARANAPPALLY,PUTHUPPALLY P.O. KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. G.P. SMT.K.R.DEEPA ADV.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 35083 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of certain lands and a two storied building thereon, in which the petitioner was conducting a business in the name and style “Mohan Engineers” in the ground floor. The petitioner alleges that at the instance of respondents 4 and 5, the room is kept locked by the intervention of respondents 2 and 3. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order was passed closing the business of the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.P.No.451/2008 before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, which was disposed of by Ext.P5 order directing the petitioner to move the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions under Section 509(7) of the Kerala Municipality Act, against Ext.P4 order. Ext.P5 order is under challenge before me. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the allegations raised by the petitioner against the Municipality involved criminal acts and therefore, the Ombudsman was bound to consider that question in exercise of the powers under Section 271.J of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. He particularly relies on Section 271.J (1)(a), of the Act, which reads thus: “271.J. Functions of the Ombudsman.- (1) The Ombudsman shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely, xxx xxx xxx xxx w.p.c.35083/08 2 (a) Where the irregularity involves a criminal offence committed by a public servant, the matter shall be referred to the appropriate authority for investigation.” In view of the said argument I directed the petitioner to produce the original petition filed by the petitioner before the Ombudsman. Accordingly, he has produced the same as Ext.P6. In Ext.P6 the only prayer made by the petitioner is as follows: “8. Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Forum, be pleased to issue necessary directions to the 1st Respondent to open the said shop room, issue licence in favour of the petitioner and allow him to conduct the business peaceably and award an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation.” The petitioner has not made any prayer before the Ombudsman for an enquiry as contemplated under Section 271.J(1)(a). That being so, the petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P5 order on the ground that the Ombudsman had not granted him an order, which he has not prayed for. Therefore, I am of opinion that the Ombudsman rightly relegated the petitioner to an appeal before the Tribunal as provided under the Kerala Municipality Act. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.35083/08 3