{"id":209545,"date":"2007-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007"},"modified":"2019-03-13T03:12:56","modified_gmt":"2019-03-12T21:42:56","slug":"mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Mavoor Grma Panchayath vs The Ombudsman on 19 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mavoor Grma Panchayath vs The Ombudsman on 19 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 18824 of 2007(N)\n\n\n1. MAVOOR GRMA PANCHAYATH,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. N.MANOJ KUMAR, S\/O.NARAYANAN,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE OMBUDSMAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. K.SREENIVASAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SMT.ARLISS TRENCY ANTONY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\n\n Dated :19\/09\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                       PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.\n                        -------------------------------\n                     W.P.(C) No. 18824 OF 2007\n                      -----------------------------------\n              Dated this the 19th day of September, 2007\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Whether it is necessary to serve notices individually, regarding<\/p>\n
Grama Sabha meetings convened under Section 3(3) of the Panchayat<\/p>\n
Raj Act is the important question which arises for decision in this Writ<\/p>\n
Petition.\n<\/p>\n
      2. Ext.P1 order of the Hon’ble Ombudsman for Local Self<\/p>\n
Government Institutions under which the Ombudsman directed the<\/p>\n
Panchayat to cancel the beneficiary list and the decisions taken in the<\/p>\n
Grama Sabha of Ward No.15 of the petitioner-Panchayat is under<\/p>\n
challenge in this Writ Petition initiated by the Panchayat and the<\/p>\n
Convenor of the beneficiary committee, i.e., Convenor of the Grama<\/p>\n
Sabha of Ward No.15. The complaint before the Ombudsman was<\/p>\n
Ext.P2. The allegation in Ext.P2 is that the beneficiary list prepared by<\/p>\n
the Grama Sabha in so far as it enlists a lady by name Alumkandi<\/p>\n
Chakky who is alleged to be not eligible for the benefit under the House<\/p>\n
Construction Scheme since her daughter Kalyani has received a total<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.4,50,000\/- by way of compensation from the Gwalior<\/p>\n
Rayons Company, is illegal. When the complaint came up before the<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
\n                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
Ombudsman, the Ombudsman would enquire of the complainant (the<\/p>\n
2nd respondent herein) as to why the objection regarding Chakki was<\/p>\n
not raised before the Grama Sabha. The 2nd respondent would answer<\/p>\n
that he was not having any notice regarding the convening of the Grama<\/p>\n
Sabha. On hearing the above answer, the Ombudsman would seek an<\/p>\n
explanation from the Secretary of the Panchayat who was present and<\/p>\n
the Secretary conceded that individual notices were not served even on<\/p>\n
the heads of the families constituting the Grama Sabha. Observing that<\/p>\n
it is the constitutional mandate of the Panchayat and the Convenor of<\/p>\n
the Grama Sabha to serve individual notices to all members of the<\/p>\n
Sabha regarding the Grama Sabha meetings and further that giving of<\/p>\n
such individual notices is the fundamental duty as far as the Panchayat<\/p>\n
Member is concerned, the learned Ombudsman went on to pass the<\/p>\n
impugned order directing the Panchayat to cancel all the beneficiary lists<\/p>\n
covered by Ext.P4 minutes in which the item pertaining to Chakki is<\/p>\n
item No.14.\n<\/p>\n
         3. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit<\/p>\n
justifying the order of the Ombudsman. The counter affidavit even goes<\/p>\n
beyond Ext.P2 complaint and submits that all the decisions in Ext.P4 are<\/p>\n
vitiated since undeserving persons have been conferred with benefits.<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
\n                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
     4. Heard Mr.P.V.Kunhikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
and Mr.B.Mohanlal, counsel for the 2nd respondent.<\/p>\n
     5. My attention was drawn by Mr.Kunhikrishnan to Rule 4 of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for convening the Grama Sabha)<\/p>\n
Rules, 1995 and also to Rule 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Manner of<\/p>\n
publication of notification or notice ) Rules, 1996. Counsel would argue<\/p>\n
that service of individual notices on the Grama Sabha members is not<\/p>\n
envisaged by those Rules. Referring to Ext.P6 public notice, learned<\/p>\n
counsel submitted that requisite notice has already been given. Counsel<\/p>\n
also submitted that notices were affixed in public places and there was<\/p>\n
loud speaker announcement also. Counsel also submitted that the<\/p>\n
Convenor’s version that he tried his best to inform the members of the<\/p>\n
Grama Sabha of the proposed meeting is not under serious challenge.<\/p>\n
    6. Mr.Mohanlal, counsel for the petitioner would draw my attention to<\/p>\n
Kerala Panchayat Raj (Manner of Service of Notices) Rules, 1996 and<\/p>\n
particularly to Rule 3 therein. According to him, in as much as the<\/p>\n
Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Convening the Grama Sabha)<\/p>\n
Rules, 1995 do not prescribe any particular mode for service of<\/p>\n
individual notice to Grama Sabha meetings, the proper rule to be<\/p>\n
followed is the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Manner of Service of Notices)<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
\n                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
Rules, 1996.\n<\/p>\n
   7. Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj(Manner of Service of Notices)<\/p>\n
Rules, 1996 provides as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “3. Serving of notice:- (1) In case the Act or rules or bye-laws<\/p>\n
      made thereunder requires the Panchayat to serve any notice or<\/p>\n
      document to a person, such service or sending shall, unless<\/p>\n
      otherwise provided in the Act or rules or bye-laws made<\/p>\n
      thereunder, be done,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (a) by service or sending of notice or document to such<\/p>\n
      person; or”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (rest being irrelevant is omitted.)<\/p>\n
      It is true that as per Rule 3(a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj<\/p>\n
(Manner of Service of Notices) Rules, 1996, service of individual notice<\/p>\n
to the person who is intended to be served with notice has been<\/p>\n
contemplated. But Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Manner of<\/p>\n
Service of Notices) Rules, 1996 applies only in cases where the<\/p>\n
Panchayat Raj Act or Rules or Bye-laws made thereunder requires the<\/p>\n
Panchayat to serve notices to a person. The Panchayat Raj Act does<\/p>\n
not insist on service of notice of Grama Sabha meetings to the persons<\/p>\n
who constitute the Grama Sabha as per Section 3(2) or to the head of<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
\n                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
the families within the area of the Grama Sabha. The relevant Rule in<\/p>\n
my opinion is Rule 4 of the        Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for<\/p>\n
convening the Grama Sabha) Rules, 1995 which is quoted hereunder:<\/p>\n
             “4. Date and Time for the meeting of the Grama Sabha:-<\/p>\n
       The President of the Village Panchayat shall, in consultation with<\/p>\n
       the Convenor of the Grama Sabha concerned, fix the date and<\/p>\n
       time between 8 am and 6 pm. And the Secretary of the Village<\/p>\n
       Panchayat concerned shall publish the place date and time of the<\/p>\n
       meeting, so fixed, by affixing notice in appropriate public places,<\/p>\n
       Government Offices, schools in the area of the Grama Sabha and<\/p>\n
       in the office of the Village Panchayat. The Convenor concerned<\/p>\n
       shall try to inform the members of the Grama Sabha the place,<\/p>\n
       date and time of the meeting and cause them to attend the<\/p>\n
       meeting (underlining supplied).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Thus under the Rule what is required is only that there shall be<\/p>\n
publicity regarding the proposed meeting of the Grama Sabha and that<\/p>\n
the Convenor concerned shall try to inform the members of the Grama<\/p>\n
Sabha, the place, date and time of the meeting and cause them to<\/p>\n
attend the meeting. What is contemplated is publication of the date,<\/p>\n
place and time, by affixing notice in public places, Government Offices,<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
\n                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
Schools in the area of the Grama Sabha and in the office of the<\/p>\n
Panchayat. The mandate to the Convenor is only that he shall try to<\/p>\n
inform the members of the venue and time of the meeting and also<\/p>\n
cause them to attend the meeting. Rule 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj<\/p>\n
(Procedure for convening the Grama Sabha) Rules, 1995 being the<\/p>\n
apposite Rule, the question to be considered is whether that Rule has<\/p>\n
been complied with in the instant case. The materials available and<\/p>\n
placed on record by the petitioners will show that there has been<\/p>\n
adequate compliance with that rule. Ext.P6 is copy of the notice issued<\/p>\n
by the Convenor of the Grama Sabha regarding the Grama Sabha<\/p>\n
meetings which is proposed to be held on 2.9.06 at 3 PM in a local<\/p>\n
school. The agenda of the meeting is clearly shown in Ext.P6. The<\/p>\n
claim that the notices were affixed in important places within the area of<\/p>\n
the Grama Sabha and propagated through loud speaker is not<\/p>\n
challenged. Considering the Pragmatic difficulties in serving individual<\/p>\n
notices on all the members of the Grama Sabha which may consists of<\/p>\n
thousands of people the learned Ombudsman is not justified in insisting<\/p>\n
on service of individual notices on all the members when neither the<\/p>\n
statute nor the relevant rule requires such service. The meeting in<\/p>\n
question, in my opinion was convened with due notice to the Grama<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
\n                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
Sabha members and the learned Ombudsman was not justified in<\/p>\n
cancelling the beneficiary lists and all the decisions taken in the meeting<\/p>\n
and directing the consideration of the beneficiary lists in the next Grama<\/p>\n
Sabha.      It is also to be noticed in this context that the statutory quorum<\/p>\n
for Grama Sabha meeting is only 10% of the total number of voters and<\/p>\n
obviously quorum has been fixed so taking into account the pragmatic<\/p>\n
difficulties which will arise if a higher quorum is insisted upon.<\/p>\n
       8. There is another reason why I am unable to sustain Ext.P1<\/p>\n
order. Ext.P2 complaint was specifically directed against the decision<\/p>\n
which is mentioned as item No.14 in Ext.P14 minutes, i.e., the decision<\/p>\n
to give the benefit to Smt.Chakki. It was not proper to set aside all the<\/p>\n
decisions as per Ext.P4 on the basis of Ext.P2 complaint. Of course, in<\/p>\n
his verbal submissions before the Ombudsman and through the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit filed by him before this court, the 4th respondent has attempted<\/p>\n
to say that all the decisions in Ext.P4 are vitiated. But in my opinion the<\/p>\n
2nd respondent having confined his complaint against Smt.Chakki alone<\/p>\n
in Ext.P2, is not entitled to challenge the other decisions in Ext.P4.<\/p>\n
       9. I set aside Ext.P1 to the extent it pertains to the decisions other<\/p>\n
than item No.14 in Ext.P4 minutes. There will be a direction to the<\/p>\n
Ombudsman to take fresh decision on Ext.P2 complaint confining the<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
\n                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
enquiry into the question whether there is any infirmity about the<\/p>\n
decision which is mentioned as item No.14 in Ext.P4 with notice to the<\/p>\n
parties. The Ombudsman will ensure that notice is also issued to<\/p>\n
Smt.Chakki and the 2nd respondent herein before fresh orders are<\/p>\n
passed.\n<\/p>\n
       The Writ Petition is allowed of as above. No costs.<\/p>\n
                                       PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
\nsrd\/btt<\/p>\n
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
\n                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
WPC No. 18824 of 2007
\n                         10<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mavoor Grma Panchayath vs The Ombudsman on 19 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 18824 of 2007(N) 1. MAVOOR GRMA PANCHAYATH, … Petitioner 2. N.MANOJ KUMAR, S\/O.NARAYANAN, Vs 1. THE OMBUDSMAN, … Respondent 2. K.SREENIVASAN, For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN For Respondent :SMT.ARLISS TRENCY ANTONY The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-209545","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMavoor Grma Panchayath vs The Ombudsman on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mavoor Grma Panchayath vs The Ombudsman on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-12T21:42:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mavoor Grma Panchayath vs The Ombudsman on 19 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-12T21:42:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1605,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Mavoor Grma Panchayath vs The Ombudsman on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-12T21:42:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mavoor Grma Panchayath vs The Ombudsman on 19 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mavoor Grma Panchayath vs The Ombudsman on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mavoor Grma Panchayath vs The Ombudsman on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-12T21:42:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mavoor Grma Panchayath vs The Ombudsman on 19 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-12T21:42:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007"},"wordCount":1605,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007","name":"Mavoor Grma Panchayath vs The Ombudsman on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-12T21:42:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mavoor-grma-panchayath-vs-the-ombudsman-on-19-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mavoor Grma Panchayath vs The Ombudsman on 19 September, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209545","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=209545"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209545\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=209545"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=209545"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=209545"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}