P.Appukuttanpillai vs The Ombudsman For Local Self … on 23 May, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15272 of 2008(R)


1. P.APPUKUTTANPILLAI, ANUPAM, PERUMPUZHA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

3. THE KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM REP;

4. G.BHAVANANDAN, RETIRED HEADMASTER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :23/05/2008

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
                     W.P.(C) No. 15272 of 2008-R
                    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

                Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P7. It is stated that the

petitioner was the Convenor of the Peoples Planning Programme

for the repairing and reconstruction of the Government T.T.I,

Kollam.

2. He entered into a contract with the third respondent-

Corporation for execution of certain works. Petitioner submits that

he could only partially complete the work on account of his transfer

from Kollam. It is stated that long thereafter in a proceedings

instituted by the fourth respondent before the first respondent, the

fourth respondent relied on Ext.P7, which was a resolution of the

Municipal Council resolving to recover from the petitioner the loss

alleged to have been suffered by the Corporation on account of

certain defaults stated to have been committed by the petitioner.

According to the petitioner thereupon only he came to know about

the resolution of the council and despite all this the first

respondent directed that the loss so occurred be recovered from

the petitioner by taking appropriate action against him. It is in

W.P.(C).No.15272/2008-R
-: 2 :-

these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed challenging

the aforesaid resolution of the council and also the order of the

Ombudsman.

3. Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the third

respondent Corporation does not have any dispute with regard to

the fact that the petitioner was not heard before these orders were

passed.

4. If that be so, Ext.P7 cannot be sustained for the violation

of principles of natural justice itself.

5. The petitioner has a contention that the Corporation

being one of the parties to the contract, is not entitled to be a judge

of its own cause and decide on the alleged default committed by

the petitioner. He is also making reference to the various

provisions of Ext.P1 contract that was entered into between the

petitioner and the Corporation to impress upon this Court that

there is no enabling provision in this behalf justifying the

Corporation’s action.

6. Be that as it may, now that as I have found Ext.P7 is

vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice, I do not think it

necessary at this stage, to go into the merits of these contentions.

Ext.P7 will stand quashed and there will be a direction to the third

W.P.(C).No.15272/2008-R
-: 3 :-

respondent Corporation to reconsider the matter, giving adequate

notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and anyone

interested thereon, I also direct that further implementation of

Ext.P5 will depend on the outcome of the reconsideration that I

have ordered above.

In the nature of the relief I have granted, I do not think it

necessary to issue notice to the fourth respondent.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge

ms