High Court Kerala High Court

U.V.Thomas vs U.V.Martin on 28 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
U.V.Thomas vs U.V.Martin on 28 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24912 of 2009(H)


1. U.V.THOMAS, SON OF VARKEY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. U.V.MARTIN, SON OF VARGHESE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. M.N.SASIDHARAN, CHAIRMAN,

3. THE SECRETARY,

4. SAJAN FRANCIS, PADIKKAL HOUSE,

5. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :28/08/2009

 O R D E R
        THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

          W.P.(C).No.24912 of 2009-H

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009.

                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges a decision of a

municipality in relation to acquisition of a

piece of land for a bus stand. The plea was

that the land was originally acquired for a

cattle market, however that, it was later

proposed to be put to use for the bus stand. That

challenge failed before the learned Ombudsman for

Local Self Government Institutions who found that

the municipality’s proposal to establish a bus

stand in the 1.71 acres acquired earlier for

providing a cattle market stood with the approval

of the Government and was covered by proper

resolution of the municipality. It was also

noticed that a civil suit was pending in the

Munsiff’s Court, Chalakkudy. The learned

Ombudsman issued the impugned Ext.P7 order on

WP(C)24912/09 -: 2 :-

10.11.2008. The Secretary of the Office of the

learned ombudsman is seen to have issued copy of

the order on 20.11.2008. At this distance of

time, on 28.8.2009, I do not find any ground for

this Court to extend its discretionary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, to entertain a challenge

against Ext.P7 which does not visit the

petitioner with any adverse civil consequences.

The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly

dismissed.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.

Sha/170909