IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21711 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.K.SUGATHAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, SACHIVOTHAMA PURAM P.O., KURICHY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. K.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, (PADHATHI FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN), PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, III-155, SACHIVOTHAMA PURAM P.O., KURICHY, KOTTAYAM. 2. T.S.SABU, THARUVANKUZHI HOUSE, SACHIVOTHAMA PURAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. ABRAHAM JACOB, PLAMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM KARA, NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 4. KURICHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KURICHY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY. 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY SRI.PIRAPPANANCODE V.S.SUDEER FOR R4 SMT.P.V.USHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.21711/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF the AGREEMENT DATED 25.6.98. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF the LETTER DATED 16.11.2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 30.5.2000. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.3.99. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.12.2008 IN OP NO.828/01. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF the DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.4.2008. EXT.P7: TRUE COPYOF THE OMMISSION REPORT IN WPC NO.13941/08. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF the JUDGMENT DATED 4.7.2008 IN WPC NO.13941/08. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY FO the JUDGMENT DATED 1.11.2008 IN WPC NO.1037/2003. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.4.2008 IN OP NO.828/01 BY THE OMBUDSMAN. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 21711 OF 2008 I ==================== Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Though service is complete, there is no representation on behalf of any of the respondents. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P10 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. It is seen that initially Ext.P5 order was passed by the Ombudsman directing that amounts be recovered from the petitioner and other members of the 4th respondent Panchayat. Ext.P5 order was challenged by all others involved in the dispute except the petitioner herein in by filing OP No.1037/2003 before this Court. That OP was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment, quashing Ext.P5, except to the extend directions were issued as against the petitioner herein. This was for the reason that he had not chosen to challenge the said order. 3. Subsequently, petitioner filed WP(C) No.13941/08 challenging Ext.P5 ad that was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment, quashing Ext.P5 to the extent it directed recovery against the WPC 21711/08 :2 : petitioner and also revenue recovery notice that was issued to him. However, it is now pointed out that in the meanwhile the Ombudsman had already issued yet another direction now produced as Ext.P10 directing that Ext.P5 be implemented against the petitioner in the light of Ext.P9 judgment rendered by this court. Presently, the prayer made by the petitioner is that Ext.P10 be quashed as Ext.P5 stands already set aside by this court in Ext.P8 judgment. 4. Facts as stated by the counsel are perfectly correct and if that be so, there is no reason why Ext.P10 should not be quashed. This is all the more for the reason that Ext.P10 is in implementation of Ext.P5 and that once Ext.P5 is set aside, Ext.P10 cannot have any separate existence. For that reason, the writ petition will stand disposed of quashing Ext.P10 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp