IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17674 of 2010(H)
1. D.S.SREEKUMARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. R.SUKUMARAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :21/06/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.17674 OF 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the proceedings
initiated by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government
Institutions. The main prayer in the writ petition is to quash
Exhibit P8 proceedings pending before the 1st respondent. The
further prayer is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider
Exhibit P12 and to give an opportunity to the petitioner to
regularize the construction of the shed, in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner herein is an Advocate by profession with
37 years of standing in Tax Laws, based at Trivandrum and
Cochin. He has been running his offices in rented buildings at
Trivandrum and Cochin. As per rent deed dated 10.06.2001, the
petitioner took a premises consisting of ground floor and one
room on the first floor above the car porch belonging to one
late Smt.Padmini Nair for a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- for his
office.
W.P.(C) No.17674/2010 2
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the rent deed
contains a provision for allotting vacant land for the construction
of a shed at his cost. This was intended to house his library and
reading room and also for the convenience of his clients. The
landlord is no more. It appears that the 3rd respondent is now
the Power of Attorney Holder of the legal heirs of the landlord.
4. The 3rd respondent filed a civil suit as O.S.No.752/2009
before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram wherein the petitioner
is the defendant. The said suit is for mandatory injunction
directing the petitioner herein to pull down and demolish the
shed. It is submitted that the matter is now pending before the
said court. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent approached the
Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions as per
Exhibit P8 complaint. It is the case of the petitioner that since
the civil suit is pending, the complaint Exhibit P8 ought not to
have been entertained by the Ombudsman.
5. The main grievance raised by the petitioner is that by
Exhibit P13, the Ombudsman has directed to file a report by the
Regional Joint Director and also has directed the Secretary to file
W.P.(C) No.17674/2010 3
a report regarding the hearing which was conducted on
13.05.2010. Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that
a notice was issued to the petitioner as per Exhibit P11 and a
hearing was held on 13.05.2010 for both parties. At the request
of both parties, the hearing was adjourned to 16.06.2010.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner came to know about the proceedings issued by the
Corporation only when a report was filed before the Ombudsman
as per Exhibit P10 wherein mention is about a notice dated
03.07.2009 issued by the Corporation to the petitioner which,
according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been
actually served on the petitioner.
7. Obviously, the Corporation has initiated some
proceedings against the petitioner. It is upto the petitioner to
defend the action before the Corporation. Exhibit P13 is an order
whereby the Ombudsman has noted the proceedings before the
Secretary of the Corporation. Thereby, the rights of parties have
not been determined by the order passed by the Ombudsman.
In that view of the matter, at this stage, no interference is
W.P.(C) No.17674/2010 4
called for in the writ petition. The petitioner can seek whatever
information from the Corporation with regard to the notices so far
issued and the like and if such requests are made by the
petitioner, the 2nd respondent will furnish copies of any of the
notices which, according to the petitioner, were not served
earlier.
With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp