IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37964 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUDHIKUMAR M.K. LALITHAMANGALAM VAYYETTU, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, VENJARAMOODU, BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SRI.K.G. RADHAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.37964/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the Ist day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard both sides. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8, an order passed by the Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.2299/05. Petitioner claimed damages on the allegation that the cheque deposited by him before the respondent bank was unduly delayed and as a result of which petitioner suffered damages. This issue was considered and the Lok Ayukta held against him in Ext.P8. In my view, the very complaint made by the petitioner is misconceived, as Lok Ayukta is incompetent to pass an order awarding damages. In this writ petition also the petitioner is praying only for damages. If a claim for damages is to be considered, necessarily the disputed question of fact will have to be adjudicated and evidence will have to be let in and appreciated. That will be possible in a regular suit. /2/ With that liberty to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/