IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22443 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BALACHANDRAJI, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, L.S.G.D.SECTION, PUTHUPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RESIDING AT CHAKKAMPUZHA HOUSE, ANIKKAD WEST P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PUTHUPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 2. SABU, PUTHUPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAYYAPPADI P.O., PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 3. K.R.SABU, KIZHAKKEKUZHI HOUSE, VENNIMALA, PAYYAPPADI P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, ALONG WITH WP(C) 22477/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NOs. 22443 & 22477 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a government servant, has been placed at the disposal of the first respondent. He is involved in carrying out certain works. There were complaints before the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. Touching those aspects, Ombudsman has taken due steps within the format of the statutory provisions contained in Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the only anxiety of the petitioner is that the time limit fixed by the learned Ombudsman is too short for the entire exercise to be carried out. That is not a matter which would generate any proceedings before this court since the learned Ombudsman could be apprised of such situation. Learned counsel accordingly sought for a direction to the learned Ombudsman to grant sufficient time. In my view, that is also unnecessary. The very fact that the quality of a person to be chosen for the post of Wpc 22443/2009 2 Ombudsman in terms of the statute reflects that it is an office which is a high repository of power, there is neither any constitutional nor other legal reason to assume that the Ombudsman would not take into consideration all relevant aspects when exercising the authority under the statute. I deem it inappropriate for this court to intervene in such matters. The parties should also ensure that this court is not often scouted in relation to proceedings before the Ombudsman unless there is clear excess of jurisdiction. The writ petitions are hence closed, without entering on merits, leaving the petitioner with liberty to seek relief from the learned Ombudsman. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/7/8