IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1488 of 2006(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K. KUTTAN NAIR, ANUGRAHA, MEZHATHOOR P.O., THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH, SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN, SMT.MEENA.A., SMT.M.R.MINI, SRI.V.S.ROBIN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SRI.T.P. KUNJUMARAKKAR MASTER, FORMERLY PRESIDENT, PONNANI BLOCK PANCHAYAT, POST EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, PONNANI BLOCK PANCHAYAT, POST EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.T.K. MOHAN. R2 & R3 BY SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA, SMT.LEKSHMY RAMANATHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C) NO. 1488/2006-B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03/09/2004 PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04/07/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/12/2005 PASSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.1488 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January 2011 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Ombudsman finding that the complaint is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Ombudsman could have enquired into the matter and passed a considerate order. 2. Petitioner, had occasions to raise certain complaints against the functioning of a hospital in Edappal. It appears that the persons supporting the hospital persuaded the 2nd respondent to convene a meeting in the conference hall of the Block Panchayat. When a notice was issued regarding the convening of the meeting, the petitioner submitted a complaint before the learned Ombudsman. 3. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that actually the meeting was not held in the office of the Panchayat. The petitioner rushed to the learned Ombudsman immediately after the notice was published. W.P..C.No.1488 of 2006 2 4. Evidently, the complaint was found not maintainable by the learned Ombudsman. No meeting had taken place also. In the light of the above factual scenario, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Ombudsman. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P..C.No.1488 of 2006 3 W.P..C.No.1488 of 2006 4 THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J. Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011