IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37160 of 2008(W)
1. V.K.JOHNY, VADAKKUMCHERRY HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, OMBUDSMAN FOR THE LOCAL
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, MANJAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
3. THE ASSISTAZNT ENGINEER, P.W.D.(ROADS),
4. A.JAYAKRISHNAN, 5/128,NANTHANAM HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.K.JOHNY (PARTY IN PERSON)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :17/12/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.37160 OF 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner appearing as party in person is aggrieved by
Ext.P8 order of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government
Institutions whereby the petitioner’s application to reconsider
earlier order Ext.P3 has been rejected. The petitioner
approached the Ombudsman with a complaint that the 4th
respondent has made a construction for the purpose of starting a
bar hotel in violation of Section 220(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act
and the construction is without leaving three metres from the
road lying adjacent to the property in question. Originally the
Ombudsman granted a stay against continued construction.
Thereafter the Ombudsman got the distance measured through
the Deputy Director of Panchayats . The Deputy Director
submitted a report stating that the minimum distance is 3.4
metres. On the basis of that report, the Ombudsman by Ext.P3
order vacated the interim order and posted the case for further
hearing. The petitioner challenged that order before this Court
W.P.(c) No.37160/08 2
by filing W.P.(C) No.16082/08. In that writ petition, this Court
passed Ext.P4 judgment upholding Ext.P3 order of the
Ombudsman, but made an observation that if the petitioner
has anything to support his plea that this finding is factually
incorrect, it is for him to seek appropriate modification of the
orders passed by the Ombudsman. But again this Court held
that on the material placed there is nothing to conclude that
the Ombudsman has committed any error in passing the
impugned orders. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the
Ombudsman. The Ombudsman by Ext.P8 order rejected the
petition with costs of Rs.1,000/- to the 4th respondent. The
petitioner is challenging that order. According to the
petitioner, now as per the measurement done by the Taluk
Surveyor, the building itself is in puramboke. The petitioner
had no such case before the Ombudsman earlier. It is a totally
new case before the Ombudsman. Initially the only complaint
of the petitioner was that the construction is without leaving 3
metres between the road and the construction. In any event,
Ext.P8 order is only in the nature of an interim order. Nothing
is sated by the petitioner as to what transpired subsequent to
Ext.P3. If the Ombudsman has not yet passed final orders in
W.P.(c) No.37160/08 3
the matter, it is for the petitioner to place the materials before
the Ombudsman while final orders are passed.
In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to
interfere with Ext.P8 order. However, taking a lenient view, I
delete that portion of the order, whereby the cost of
Rs.1,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c) No.37160/08 4