IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16230 of 2009(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.K. FRANCIS, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, P.O. OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR - 680 655. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. K.K. GOPI KUNDIL HOUSE, KUNNATHUMKARA, P.O. OLLUKKARA. THRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 3. R. BINDU, MAYOR OF THRISUR CORPORATION THRISSUR. R1 BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS, SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.16230/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS 1:- COPY OF THE OP. 245/2009 DTD. 7.2.200 FILED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL BODIES. P2:- COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION DTD. 20.10.2008 FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.3. P3:- COPY OF THE CASH BILL DTD. NIL FROM ULTRA PRINT. P4:- COPY OF THE VOUCHER NO.NIL DTD. NIL FROM ANNAN STORES. P5:- COPY OF THE ESTIMATE DTL NIL FROM THACHODY. P6:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN A LETTER- HEAD OF SANGEETHA STORES AND STATIONERY. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 3.12.2008 FROM SECRETARY, NADATHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 15.10.08 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR. P9:- COPY OF THE BILL DTD. NIL FROM SACHI PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 4.4.2009 IN OP. 245/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE OMBUDSMAN. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1:- COPY OF THE PUBLICITY NOTICE FOR THE NOTICE DTD. 22.8.07 FOR THE ONAM FESTIVAL CEREBRATION IN DIVISION NO.15 SCHEDULED TO THE HELD AT 2 P.M. ON 26.8.07. R1(a):- COPY OF THE CASH BILL FOR RS. 450/- FOR PRINTING 500 COPIES OF EXT.R1 NOTICE ISSUED BY ULTRA PRINT, KALATHODU. R1(b):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR HIRIGIN TABLES, CHAIRS AND FOR DISTRIBUTION OF COFFEE, TEA AND BISCUITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2425/-. R1(c):- COPY OF THE BILL CUM RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 500/- IN CASH TO PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER. R1(d):- COPY OF THE BILL CUM RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF RS.900 TO METRO SOUND AND ELECTRICALS, MANNUTHY TOWARDS HIRE CHARGES OF SOUND SYSTEM AND BATTERY. R1(e):- COPY OF THE BILL CUM RECEIPT FOR RS. 1150/- TOWARDS EXPENDITURE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF ''PAYASAM'' AND ALSO FOR THE BANNER. R1(f):- COPY OF THE LETTER OF REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CORPORATION COUNCIL. R1(g):- COPY OF THE 6 PHOTOGRAPHS PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXT.R1(f). TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 16230 of 2009-W - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P10 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Petitioner is a permanent resident in Division No. 15 in Thrissur Corporation and is a voter from the said Division. The first respondent is the Councillor of the said Division. In the year 2007 the Corporation had sanctioned an amount of Rs.5,000/- for the said Division to celebrate Onam festival. The allegation raised by the petitioner is that without celebrating Onam festival and by producing false and fabricated bills and vouchers, the said amount was misappropriated by the first respondent for his own use. After conducting enquiry, the Ombudsman closed the petition finding that there is no misappropriation. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cash bills and vouchers produced herein will show that evidently they have been created to get the amount and actually no expenditure has been incurred for the purpose of Onam celebration. It is submitted that mere wpc 16230/2009 2 perusal of the above bills will show that everything is fabricated. It is therefore submitted that the view taken by the Ombudsman cannot be supported, as the vouchers, on a mere perusal, will establish the allegations raised by the petitioner. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the Corporation had disbursed the amount for the purpose of Onam celebration, which were duly conducted by the first respondent and the allegations otherwise are not correct. It is submitted that the allegations are made with political motivation. 5. A reading of the order Ext.P10 shows that the Ombudsman directed the Regional Joint Director of Urban Affairs, to look into the allegations and accordingly he submitted a report dated 31.3.2009. Therein, it was stated that the first respondent has received the amount and provided supporting documents to prove the expenditure, in the form of printed notice and photographs relating to the events. The Local Fund Audit Department had conducted audit, wherein also no irregularity has been found out. The accounts were also approved by the Finance Committee and the Corporation Council. In the light of these facts, the Ombudsman concluded that there is no substantial default warranting action. It was further observed that the first respondent should have shown more care wpc 16230/2009 3 while preparing the accounts and accordingly a warning was also issued. 6. The above findings show that the conclusions have been arrived at after perusing the report of the competent officer. Apart from the vouchers and bills, there were printed notices and photographs relating to the events. Therefore, it is not as if the order was passed without considering the relevant materials, in the light of this aspect and as the Local Fund Audit also did not find anything wrong with the expenditure, the Ombudsman has rightly closed the complaint finding that the allegations have not been established. 7. This Court is not obviously sitting in appeal over the findings rendered by the Ombudsman, on certain questions of fact. It cannot be said that the view taken is so perverse warranting interference by this Court. I do not find any reason to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/