IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17674 of 2010(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- D.S.SREEKUMARAN, N-5, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MS.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL), ADVOCATE. MS.PRINCY XAVIER, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. R.SUKUMARAN NAIR, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF NEERAJ KISHORE AND NISHANTH VINAYAK, RADHALAYAM, T.C.No.5/2001, SREEKRISHNA LANE, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.P.K. MANOJ KUMAR, SC. MS.K.R. DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17674 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. The main prayer in the writ petition is to quash Exhibit P8 proceedings pending before the 1st respondent. The further prayer is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P12 and to give an opportunity to the petitioner to regularize the construction of the shed, in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner herein is an Advocate by profession with 37 years of standing in Tax Laws, based at Trivandrum and Cochin. He has been running his offices in rented buildings at Trivandrum and Cochin. As per rent deed dated 10.06.2001, the petitioner took a premises consisting of ground floor and one room on the first floor above the car porch belonging to one late Smt.Padmini Nair for a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- for his office. W.P.(C) No.17674/2010 2 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the rent deed contains a provision for allotting vacant land for the construction of a shed at his cost. This was intended to house his library and reading room and also for the convenience of his clients. The landlord is no more. It appears that the 3rd respondent is now the Power of Attorney Holder of the legal heirs of the landlord. 4. The 3rd respondent filed a civil suit as O.S.No.752/2009 before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram wherein the petitioner is the defendant. The said suit is for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner herein to pull down and demolish the shed. It is submitted that the matter is now pending before the said court. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions as per Exhibit P8 complaint. It is the case of the petitioner that since the civil suit is pending, the complaint Exhibit P8 ought not to have been entertained by the Ombudsman. 5. The main grievance raised by the petitioner is that by Exhibit P13, the Ombudsman has directed to file a report by the Regional Joint Director and also has directed the Secretary to file W.P.(C) No.17674/2010 3 a report regarding the hearing which was conducted on 13.05.2010. Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that a notice was issued to the petitioner as per Exhibit P11 and a hearing was held on 13.05.2010 for both parties. At the request of both parties, the hearing was adjourned to 16.06.2010. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner came to know about the proceedings issued by the Corporation only when a report was filed before the Ombudsman as per Exhibit P10 wherein mention is about a notice dated 03.07.2009 issued by the Corporation to the petitioner which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been actually served on the petitioner. 7. Obviously, the Corporation has initiated some proceedings against the petitioner. It is upto the petitioner to defend the action before the Corporation. Exhibit P13 is an order whereby the Ombudsman has noted the proceedings before the Secretary of the Corporation. Thereby, the rights of parties have not been determined by the order passed by the Ombudsman. In that view of the matter, at this stage, no interference is W.P.(C) No.17674/2010 4 called for in the writ petition. The petitioner can seek whatever information from the Corporation with regard to the notices so far issued and the like and if such requests are made by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent will furnish copies of any of the notices which, according to the petitioner, were not served earlier. With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp