IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3105 of 2009(T) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- ANDOORKONAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT (SPECIAL GRADE), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, D.RAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT REVATHY, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU.V. RESPONDENT: ---------------- S.SHYAMALA, B.S.NIVAS, KOITHOOR KONAM, ANDOORKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.3105 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions whereby the Ombudsman found that the respondent herein is the eligible person for financial assistance for construction of a house. The contention of the Panchayat is that the decision was taken by the Grama sabha which decision cannot be lightly be interfered with by the Ombudsman. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Ombudsman has not found any extraneous consideration by the Panchayat for preferring the person, who was selected. He would further submit that the Ombudsman has not considered the comparative merits of the two applicants. The petitioner, therefore, submits that Ext.P5 is liable to be interfered with. 2. I have gone through Ext.P5. I am satisfied that the Ombudsman has given sufficient reasons for arriving at the decision. In fact the Ombudsman has found, on the basis of W.P.(c)No.3105/09 2 materials on record, that the contentions raised by the petitioner before the Ombudsman were unacceptable and that the same are against the report of the State Performance Audit Officer. The Ombudsman also disbelieved the petitioner’s contention that the respondent had not submitted application for the year 2005-2006. In fact what the Ombudsman has done is to direct the petitioner to give first preference to the respondent on the basis of the report of the State Performance Audit Officer. I do not find any infirmity in that decision and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.3105/09 3