IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 26769 of 2003(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- D. JAYADHARMAN, VALAVUPURAYIDAM, KEEZHKOLLAM, AMARAVILA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, CHENKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL SRI.T.A.PRASANTH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD. P2: TRUE COPY OF PAPER REPORTS IN MADHYAMAM DAILY DT.28.7.1998 AND MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DT.4.1.2003. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DT.2.9.1998. P4: TRUE COPY OF BENEFICIARY LIST APPROVED BY THE GRAMA SABHA ON 3.7.2000. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT.1.4.2002. P6: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.3.4.2001 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION. P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.4.7.2002. P8: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DT.22.11.2002. P9: TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT DT.9.10.2002. P10: TRUE COPY OF NEWS PAPER REPORT IN KERALA KAUMUDHI DAILY DT.27.11.2002. P11: TRUE COPY OF NEWS PAPER REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT.5.1.2003. P12: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO.1505/01 DT.28.4.2003 OF THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, TRIVANDRUM. P13: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.5.5.2003 SENT BY REGISTERED POST AND RETURNED TO THE PETITIONER. P14: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.17.7.2003 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. P15: TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT.8.7.2003. P16: TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORT IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DT.27.7.2003. P17: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.10.3.2006 OF THE RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.26769 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P12 whereunder the Ombudsman has dismissed petitioner's complaint on a cost of Rs.10,000/-. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order passed by the Ombudsman. On going through the order of the Ombudsman I find that the petitioner forged some Panchayat records with the help of a relative who was in the service of the Panchayat for a short time and who was later removed. A bogus complaint was filed by the petitioner which was found to be a waste of time for the Ombudsman. Further, it is seen that Ombudsman on the basis of complaint by the petitioner ordered enquiry and the report prove that the petitioner's case was without any bonafides. Even though counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently Secretary was suspended for irregularities, I do not think the suspension of Secretary helps petitioner to get out of the allegations found against him by the Ombudsman. In the circumstances, Ext.P12 is upheld in principle. But I reduce the compensatory cost ordered by the Ombudsman from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.2,000/- on condition that petitioner will 2 remit the same to the Panchayat within a period of two months from today, failing which the reduction granted will stand automatically cancelled. W.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms