IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 17653 of 2001(B) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.M.ALI KUNJU, SON OF MAKKARUKUTTY, AGED 71, MUTTIL VEEDU, KATTIKUNNU, CHEMPU P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.CHARLES SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.PRAKASH P.GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1) CHEMPU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP: BY ITS SECRETARY MURALEEDHARAN, BAHMAMANGALAM P.O., PIN : 686 614. 2) M.K.DAMODARAN ELAYATH, FORMER SECRETARY, CHEMPU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NOW WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT, BLOCK PANCHAYAT OFFICE, KADUTHURUTHY P.O., PIN : 686 604. 3) K.K.RAMESAN, PRESIDENT, CHEMPU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, BRAHMAMANGALAM P.O., PIN : 686 614. 4) K.B.SULAIKHA BEEVI, MEMBER, WARD NO.4, CHEMPU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KEEZHATHU VEEDU, KATTIKUNNY, CHEMPU P.O., PIN : 686 615. 5) V.SOMAN, MEMBER, WARD NO.1, CHEMPU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ETTITHARA VEEDU, CHEMPU P.O., PIN : 686 615. 6) T.P.KUNJAN, MEMBER, WARD NO.3, THURUTHEL VEEDU, KATTIKUNNU, CHEMPU P.O., PIN : 686 615. (.........2) -: 2 :- 7) OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, BATTONHILL BUNGLOW, KUNNUKUZHI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN R4 BY SMT.C.G.BINDU SMT.C.G.AJITHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: Copy of the complaint by the petitioner before the 7th respondent dtd.17-8-2000. P2: Copy of the order passed by the 7th respondent in OP.No.286/2000 dtd.27-2-2001. P3: Copy of the notice issued by the 4th respondent dtd.22-11-1996. P4: Copy of the decision taken in the meeting held on 25-11-1996. P5: Copy of the letter dtd.20-12-1997 issued by the member Ward No.4 to the petitioner. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- Nil. ( true copy ) P.A. to Judge. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.No.17653 OF 2001-B. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.No.286/2000. The substance of the complaint is that in the meeting of the beneficiaries held on 25- 11-1996 in the house of the petitioner, a nine member committee was selected for the work relating to the renovation of a culvert and link road in Poothotta – Chempuvalel fishing farm road in Ward No.IV of Chempu Grama Panchayat. It is his case that the petitioner was elected as convenor to execute the work. He was also directed to execute an agreement for the supply of materials for the work which was complied by him. He had spent Rs.19,565/- for the work, out of which he was paid only Rs.11,138/-. For the realisation of the balance amount he filed OS.No.351/1998 before the Munsiff Court, Vaikom. He has sought to take action against the persons responsible for causing loss to the Panchayat. O.P.No.17653 OF 2001-B. 2 2. The Secretary of the Panchayat has filed a written statement before the Ombudsman denying the allegations in the complaint. It was pointed out therein that the work was done by a sub- committee consisting the President of the Panchayat and the members of Ward Nos.1, 3 and 4 and the Secretary of the Panchayat. Actually no beneficiary committee was constituted as alleged by the petitioner. He was only a supplier of materials and his quotation regarding the said matter was accepted by the Panchayat committee. 3. Evidence was adduced before the Ombudsman. Pws.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked in the complaint. Rw1 was examined by the respondents and Exts.R1 to R7 were marked on their side. After a detailed consideration of the oral and documentary evidence the complaint was rejected as per Ext.P2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the approach made by the Ombudsman is faulty and it was pointed out that the Ombudsman should have initiated action against the persons involved in the matter. 5. The Ombudsman considered various materials before entering a finding that the petitioner has not established his case. O.P.No.17653 OF 2001-B. 3 Ext.P5 produced before the Ombudsman is the agreement executed by him in favour of the panchayat which shows that he was only a supplier of materials for the work. He was also elected as the convener of the beneficiary committee. 6. Exts.P6 and P7 will show that the petitioner was not elected as the convenor for the work. Thus, on the basis of the above materials and Exts.P5 to P9 produced by the petitioner himself before the Ombudsman, a conclusion was arrived at by the Ombudsman rightly that, the Panchayat executed the work through a sub committee which consisted of the President of the Panchayat, members from Ward Nos.1, 3 and 4 and the Secretary of the Panchayat. The petitioner could not point out anything against the above finding. It is a finding of fact which cannot be disturbed in these proceedings. The petitioner has not produced any materials before this Court to show that he was elected as the convenor for the work and it was entrusted to him. The Ombudsman also considered various decisions taken by the Panchayat by perusing official records kept by the panchayat. The Ombudsman found that the petitioner was never elected as the convenor of the beneficiary committee. Thus the finding that the complainant has not O.P.No.17653 OF 2001-B. 4 succeeded in establishing that he had executed the work as the convenor of the beneficiary committee does not suffer from any infirmity. It cannot be said that the finding is perverse and is not supported by any material evidence in this case. Therefore, no interference is called for in the matter. As regards the claim of the petitioner for the balance amount of Rs.8,427/-, the Ombudsman rightly observed that as the petitioner has filed a Suit OS.No.351/1998 before the Munsiff Court, Vaikom, no orders in that regard are called for also. 7. As the entire matter was considered by the Ombudsman in the right perspective based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, and as there are no other grounds to interfere with such findings and as the findings are not vitiated by any other circumstances, the writ petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/