IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21160 of 2008(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- P. DEVAKI, KARINGALLAYIL HOUSE, RAMANATTUKARA.,P.O, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21160/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Non-implementation of Ext.P11 passed by the Ombudman for Local Self Government Institutions in CMP.No.133/2007 in O.P.No.355/2007 is complained of in this writ petition. A reading of the order shows that by the aforesaid order, the Ombudsman had directed the Corporation and the Town Planning Committee to approve the plan in the next meeting itself, if the plan does not violate any Building Rules. 2. The standing counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the Corporation and the Town Planning Corporation has no case that the order has not become final and binding between the parties. If that be so, there is absolutely no justification for the non-implementation of Ext.P11. 2 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that respondents 1 and 3 shall implement Ext.P11 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Though the Principal of the Medical College is also a party in this writ petition, since the direction in Ext.P11 is only against the Secretary of the Corporation and the Town Planning Officer, I do not think it necessary that notice should be issued to the second respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3