IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 OP.No. 8840 of 2002(B) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, ARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PAYAM P.O., ERATTY, EDOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. MAMACHHAN,KOLLAMKOTTUPHARAPPIL, S/O.THOMAS, ARALAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * 2. NARIKODEN RAJAN, NARIKODEN VEEDU, A.P.II 675. ARALAM, VEERPAD P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR. (DIED AND LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED.) 3. ANNAMMA PAUL, MADATHIKUNNEL VEEDU, A.P.I.366, VEERAPADU P.O., ARALAM, THALASSERY, KANNUR. 4. ELIZABETH VARGHESE, MOLATHAL VEEDU, A.P.I.360, ARALAM,VEERPAD P.O., THALASSERY,KANNUR. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. * 6. ADDITIONAL R6 IMPLEADED ADDITIONAL R6:- DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, KANNUR IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R6 AS PER ORDER dated 02/04/02 in C.M.P.No.15825/2002. OP.No. 8840 of 2002(B) Addl.R7: SOBHA PUTHIYEDATH PUTHAKKUNDU, ARALAM.P.O. '' R8: RAJESH PUTHIYEDATH PUTHAKKUNDU, ARALAM.P.O. '' R9: SHYJA PUTHIYEDATH PUTHAKKUNDU, ARALAM.P.O. '' R10: SHYMA PUTHIYEDATH PUTHAKKUNDU, ARALAM.P.O. '' R11: PRIYA PUTHIYEDATH PUTHAKKUNDU, ARALAM.P.O. '' R12: PREETHA PUTHIYEDATH PUTHAKKUNDU, ARALAM.P.O. (THE DEATH OF SECOND RESPONDENT IS RECORDED AND ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 7 TO 12 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SECOND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 14/11/08 IN I.A.No.14366/08.) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDAKUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 8840 of 2002(B) ORDER ON CMP.No.15740 OF 2002 IN O.P.No. 8840 of 2002(B) CLOSED 22/06/2009 V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1 : Copy of the bye-laws or rules of the Community Development Society. EXHIBIT P2 : Copy of the proceedings of the beneficiary Society EXHIBIT P3 : Copy of the complaint filed by respondent No.2. EXHIBIT P4 : Copy of the complaint filed by respondent No.3. EXHIBIT P5 : Copy of the complaint filed by respondent No.4. EXHIBIT P6 : Copy of the statement filed by the 1st petitioner. EXHIBIT P7 : Copy of the statement submitted by the Implementing Officer before the Panchayat. EXHIBIT P8 : Copy of the order dated 31.1.2002 passed by respondent No.1 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- Nil. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- O.P.No.8840 OF 2002 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the Secretary and an elected member (Ward No.X) of Aralam Grama Panchayat in Kannur District. They are challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the Ombudsman of the Local Self Government by which a penalty of Rs.5,000/- was imposed against each of them. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the scheme itself, against which the complaint was raised, was dropped subsequently. The learned counsel also submitted that though there was a direction to the 4th respondent to file a report regarding the compliance of Ext.P8, no report is so far filed. 3. In Ext.P8 it is specifically observed that the petitioners herein submitted that the panchayat prepared to pass appropriate orders granting benefit to the complainants therein. The undertaking of the O.P.No.8840 OF 2002 2 petitioners to provide the benefits (that they will give cows to the complainants) within one month from the date of Ext.P8 order was also recorded. It appears that the beneficiary of this order has not appeared before this court, probably because of the subsequent development i.e., the dropping of the scheme. It is the case of the petitioners that they have no personal responsibility in selecting the beneficiary of the scheme and the same was done by the Kudumbasree as a whole. In the light of the facts and circumstances indicated above, the order of the first respondent is not sustainable any more especially the said scheme has already been dropped by the competent authority. Therefore Ext.P8 is set aside. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P8 in the light of the subsequent developments that have taken place, during the pendency of this writ petition. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE skj.