IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24483 of 2009(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A. JOHN, PROPRIETOR, ANSONS GROUP, ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, UNION AUTO BUILDING, MUNICIPAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, IRINJALAKUDA POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE IRINJALAKUDA MUNCIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, IRINJALAKUDA POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, BARTON HILL, KUNNUKUZHY POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.24483 of 2009-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner seeks a declaration that he is entitled to his professional fee and service tax thereon from the first respondent Municipality for the architectural works executed by him. He seeks such declaration on the strength of Clause 1 of the agreement between the parties and relies on Ext.P4 Government Order. He seeks a further relief to quash Exts.P8 and P8A decisions of the Municipality and Ext.P11 order where the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions refused to interfere with, at the instance of the petitioner, taking the view that the matter is one for determination before a civil court. He also seeks a direction to the Municipality and its officers to pay an amount of Rs.8.5 lakhs as balance professional fee with service tax WP(C)24483/09 -: 2 :- thereon. 2.The aforesaid facts, by themselves, would show that Exts.P8 and P8A having been issued by the Municipality refuting the claim of the petitioner, the matter can be resolved only on adjudication by the competent court, namely, the civil court. That view expressed by the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions in Ext.P11 also does not, therefore, warrant interference. The writ petition fails and hence the same is dismissed leaving open the right of the petitioner to seek reliefs from the civil court. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/070909