IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31659 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SASEENDRAN, SANNIDHANAM, KEETHARIKKANDY, KIZHUNNA, THOTTADA P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH SRI.SAJU RAGHAVAN SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001. 2. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS BARTONHILL BANGLOVE, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 037. 3. EDAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERDAKKAD, THOTTADA P.O., KANNUR - 7. 4. SECRETARY, EDAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERDAKKAD, THOTTADA P.O., KANNUR - 7. 5. RAMATH UNNIKRISHNAN, GOPAL NIVAS, THOTTADA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670007. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31659 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is the resident of Edakkad Grama Panchayat has filed this writ petition mainly challenging Ext.P10 order passed by the Secretary of the said Grama Panchayat and Ext.P11 order passed by the Honourable Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. By Ext.P10, the Secretary of Edakkad Grama Panchayat held that the claim of the petitioner over a pathway will have to be adjudicated upon by the civil court for the reason that as per the records available in the Panchayat, such a pathway is not in existence. The Honourable Ombudsman concurred with that view. In my opinion, as the claim made by the petitioner before the Secretary of the Panchayat and before the Honourable Ombudsman is as regards a right of way, he ought to have moved the civil court seeking establishment of his rights, instead of straight-away moving this Court. The question whether a pathway as claimed by the petitioner is in existence will have to be decided after trial in view of the findings and observations in Ext.P10. I am therefore of the opinion that the W.P.(C) No.31659 of 2010 2 remedy of the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by Exts.P10 and P11 orders, is to move the competent civil court seeking establishment of his rights. Without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.