IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24483 of 2009(E)
1. A.JOHN, PROPRIETOR, ANSONS GROUP,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY,
... Respondent
2. THE IRINJALAKUDA MUNCIPAL COUNCIL,
3. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR THE LOCAL SELF
For Petitioner :SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :26/08/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.24483 of 2009-E
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
1.The petitioner seeks a declaration that he is
entitled to his professional fee and service tax
thereon from the first respondent Municipality
for the architectural works executed by him. He
seeks such declaration on the strength of Clause
1 of the agreement between the parties and relies
on Ext.P4 Government Order. He seeks a further
relief to quash Exts.P8 and P8A decisions of the
Municipality and Ext.P11 order where the learned
Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions
refused to interfere with, at the instance of the
petitioner, taking the view that the matter is
one for determination before a civil court. He
also seeks a direction to the Municipality and
its officers to pay an amount of Rs.8.5 lakhs as
balance professional fee with service tax
WP(C)24483/09 -: 2 :-
thereon.
2.The aforesaid facts, by themselves, would show
that Exts.P8 and P8A having been issued by the
Municipality refuting the claim of the
petitioner, the matter can be resolved only on
adjudication by the competent court, namely, the
civil court. That view expressed by the learned
Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions
in Ext.P11 also does not, therefore, warrant
interference.
The writ petition fails and hence the same is
dismissed leaving open the right of the
petitioner to seek reliefs from the civil court.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/070909