IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 13044 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.GANESHAN, KAVADI VILAKAM, SISILYPURAM, VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SURESHKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN, VENGANOOR, KATTACHIL POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYATH DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. VENGANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 13044 of 2010-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the finalisation of the list of beneficiaries of the Scheme, viz. E.M.S. Bhavanapadhathi. The 4th respondent is the concerned Panchayat who had published a list of the beneficiaries showing 185 applicants along with a supplementary list of 46 applicants, as per Ext.P1. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, pointing out the irregularities in the matter, as per Ext.P2. Thereafter, the Ombudsman passed Ext.P3 order directing investigation of the complaint by the Deputy Director of Panchayats. It is the case of the petitioner that even before the conclusion of the enquiry, the list has been expanded by the Panchayat by including a total number of 400 persons, which is evident from Ext.P4. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader. A reading of the order passed by the Ombudsman shows that it is only an interim order pending final orders to be passed. It is clear from Ext.P3 that the Deputy Director of Panchayats has been directed to conduct wpc 13044/2010 2 an enquiry and to file a report within three months. It is also mentioned that after furnishing the report, the same has to be forwarded to the Ombudsman for appropriate orders and thereafter the time for further hearing will be fixed. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is deprived the chance to move the Ombudsman in the light of the fact that fresh guidelines for distribution and identification of the beneficiaries, have been framed by the Government as per Ext.P5. I do not find any reason to accept the said argument in the light of the fact that the Ombudsman is well empowered to take appropriate action as per the provisions of the Act, to conduct enquiry as proposed in Ext.P3 and to pass appropriate orders. It is open to the petitioner to move the Ombudsman pointing out the deficiencies in Ext.P4 list. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the Deputy Director of Panchayats has not so far conducted any enquiry in the matter in spite of the direction issued by the Ombudsman. The Deputy Director of Panchayts cannot obviously delay the matter, since in Ext.P3 order, there is a positive direction by the Ombudsman to furnish a report within three months. 3. Therefore, is only appropriate that the petitioner is directed to wpc 13044/2010 3 move the Ombudsman for appropriate orders. Leaving open the said remedy, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/