IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3659 of 2007(I)
1. PAUL JOSEPH, KARINHOLIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
... Respondent
2. THE KARIMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
3. SRI.NAZAR, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :15/10/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.3659 OF 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that by
Ext.P1, the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions
recorded the undertaking made by the Secretary of the
Panchayat to demolish the allegedly unauthorised construction
made by the petitioner as per the decision of the panchayat on
4.4.2005, without hearing the petitioner and without making the
petitioner a party at the instance of the 3rd respondent.
2. I am not inclined to go into the controversy now, in so
far as I am inclined to direct the Panchayat to take a decision in
the matter after hearing the petitioner in accordance with the
provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to
the 2nd respondent – Panchayat to take a final decision in the
matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent expeditiously. Till final
decision is communicated to the petitioner against which the
W.P.(c)No.3659/07 2
petitioner can seek appellate remedies as provided under the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the undertaking given by the
Secretary before the Ombudsman as recorded in Ext.P1 shall
not be implemented. However, if the decision of the
Panchayat is against the petitioner, the Panchayat can take
further proceedings, subject of course to the orders that the
petitioner may obtain in appellate proceedings.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.3659/07 3