M.Mohanalakshmi vs Cheruvannur Nallalam Grama … on 17 September, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23544 of 2007(C)


1. M.MOHANALAKSHMI, W/O RAJKUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CHERUVANNUR NALLALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. P.DIVAKARAN, S/O AYYAPPAN,

3. OMBUDSMAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.SUDHISH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :17/09/2007

 O R D E R
                        PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
                         -------------------------------
                      W.P.(C) No. 23544 OF 2007
                       -----------------------------------
               Dated this the 17th day of September, 2007

                                JUDGMENT

There is controversy between the petitioner and the party

respondents and also the 1st respondent as to whether in compliance

with the demolition order passed by the Panchayat pursuant to an

interim order passed by the 3rd respondent-Ombudsman, the 2nd

respondent has actually demolished and removed the leach pit put up

by him.

According to the petitioner, even before the Ombudsman had

passed the order of demolition, the petitioner had removed the pit in

question. Counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri.Vinod Singh Cherian and

Sri.Mohammed Nias, counsel for the Panchayat do not agree.

According to them, the pit has not been demolished or removed at all.

Under these circumstances, I am of the view that an inspection is to be

conducted by the Panchayat Secretary with notice to the petitioner and

the 2nd respondent and in their presence to verify whether the

petitioner’s claim that he has already removed the pit in question is

correct. Accordingly, I dispose of the Writ Petition itself issuing the

following directions:

The Secretary of the Panchayat will take up Ext.P3, fix a date for

WPC No. 23544 of 2007
2

local inspection and inform the petitioner and the 2nd respondent of the

date and time of the local inspection. He will conduct the local

inspection in the presence of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent so as

to verify whether the petitioner’s claim in Ext.P3 that the objectionable

pit has been removed is correct. On the basis of what is revealed from

the local inspection the petitioner and the 2nd respondent will be heard

by the Secretary of the Panchayat who will pass final orders on Ext.P3.

In view of the above directions Ext.P4 is quashed.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt

WPC No. 23544 of 2007
3