Allowed

Kalady Grama Panchayath v. Ombudsman

Kerala HC9 Jul 2012WP(C)/10323/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging an Ombudsman order. The Ombudsman directed the Panchayat to pay a grant to a medical ashram based solely on a District Medical Officer's sanction, despite the Panchayat raising eligibility objections. The Court set aside the Ombudsman order for ignoring contentions.

What did the court decide?

The Ombudsman's order (Ext.P3) setting aside Ext.P3 and quashing the directive to the Panchayat immediately, clarified that eligibility must be assessed independently.

Kalady Grama Panchayath Vs Ombudsman — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2012/18TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 10323 of 2007 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIJAYAKRISHNAN O.K., S/O.O.A. KRISHNAN, AGED 49 YEARS, OZHAKKANATTU, VELLOORKUNNAM, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF

¶11

GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,

¶12

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. SWAMI AMALESHANANDA, PRESIDENT, SRI RAMAKRISHNA ADVAITA ASHRAMA,

¶14

KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM.

¶15

R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.M. MOHAMMED SHAH. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL, SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

WP(C).No. 10323 of 2007 (D)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN DATED 05/07/2006.

¶22

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN DATED 30/10/2006.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶29

........................................ W.P.(C).10323/2007

¶30

.............................................. Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2012

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶33

Petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P3, an order passed by the first respondent in O.P.562/2006. That O.P was filed by the second respondent seeking a direction to the petitioner herein to disburse the grant of `7,800/- per year. That claim was made on the basis that the District Medical Officer, the sanctioning Authority, has already sanctioned the grant and that despite that order, Panchayat is not disbursing the grant. It is considering that complaint, the Ombudsman passed Exct.P3 order directing the Panchayat to pay the petitioner all arrears of grant as claimed by it.

¶34

However, a reading of the objection filed by the

¶35

W.P.(C).10323/07

¶36

¶37

Panchayat shows that it has raised various contentions disputing the eligibility of the petitioner to receive the grant. According to the Panchayat, as per the Indian System of Medicines Manual, to be eligible for the grant, a hospital should be situated 2 miles away from another one and that the doctor working there, should be below 70 years and that the doctor should not be doing any private practice. It is stated that the second respondent Institution did not satisfy any one of those conditions and that therefore, were ineligible for the grant. However the Ombudsman did not take note of any one of these objections and directed that grant be paid for the only reason that DMO has sanctioned it. In my view, this order suffers from infirmity of ignoring the contentions raised by the Panchayt and for that reason, I set aside Ext.P3.

¶38

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶39

However, it is clarified that if the second respondent

¶40

W.P.(C).10323/07

¶41

¶42

is eligible for grant of any specific period, this judgment will not stand in its way in claiming its disbursement from the Panchayat or such other authorities.

¶43

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶44

mrcs

¶45

/true copy/ PA To Judge

Kalady Grama Panchayath v. Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalady Grama Panchayath v. Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddique Kalathil Vs Sobhana Kamala Sudarsana Rao

Rema N.K. Vs M.Nandakumar

Jayaprakash P.M. Vs Secretary, Vatakara Municipality

Nadeera Vs Kuthanoor Grama Panchayath

Pushpavalli Vs the Returning Officer, Kudumbasree

The Kerala State Co-Operative Consumers Vs the Secretary,Guruvayoor Municipality