Dismissed

Issac v. the Kerala Ombudsman

Kerala HC24 Jul 2012WP(C)/3851/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order dismissing a complaint filed against irregularities in works execution. The court upheld the Ombudsman's finding that the petitioner suppressed facts regarding a site shift. The court held the complaint was without substance and dismissed the writ petition, affirming the imposition of costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the order of the Ombudsman dismissing the complaint and imposing costs is dismissed.

Issac Vs the Kerala 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

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2012/2ND SRAVANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 3851 of 2004 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SRI. ISSAC, AGED 65, S/O. LATE VARKEY, NARAMBUSHA VEEDU, KALLOORKODU P.O. MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): --------------

¶10

1. THE KERALA OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELFGOING BODIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

3. SRI. K.V.GEORGE, KAPIYARUMALAYIL, KALLOORKODU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.L.JOSEPH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 3851 of 2004 (H)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITINER'S EXHBITS

¶19

EXT.P1. COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MINOR IRREGATION, ERNAKULAM ON 23.1.2002 BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXT.P2. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 7.3.2002.

¶21

EXT.P3. COPY OF ORDER DATED 1.12.2003 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4. COPY OF NOTICE DATED 3.1.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶27

W.P.(C).3851/2004

¶28

Dated this the 24^th day of July, 2012

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioner challenges Ext.P3, an order passed by

¶31

the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions dismissing O.P.138/02 filed by the petitioner alleging that the protection works in Mookkanthodu-Chalakandam Padam Thodu was awarded to the convener of a beneficiary Committee and that the Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation, ordered the convener to start the work at Mookkanthodu-Chalakandam Padam in Kalkloorkkadu Grama Panchayat. However, according to him, the site of the work was shifted by the convener of the beneficiary Committee, the third respondent herein, and he was executing the work at a place called Putharikkad Padam. It was aggrieved by the above, O.P was filed. Insofar as this allegation is concerned, the Ombudsman found thus:-

¶32

It is clear from statements in the

¶33

W.P.(C).3851/04

¶34

¶35

counter of the District Panchayat supported by evidence that the so called alteration was made as per decision taken at the meeting convened on 25.2.02. It is relevant in this context to note that not only the petitioner but all other complainants and all other parties including all concerned authorities, had participated in that meeting. That means the alternation in the scheme and the additional work were taken up for execution with the blessings of the petitioner as also the other complainants. In other words the work now being executed is one which has the approval of the petitioner and all other complainants.

¶36

Thereafter, Ombudsman held that the

¶37

petitioner was a party to the decision to shift the site, that he suppressed the said fact and misled it on the basis of such false statement. On this basis, holding that the petitioner is not a person having any regard or respect for truth, exercising its powers under Section 271K(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, (in short 'the Act'), Ombudsman imposed a compensatory cost of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner while dismissing his complaint. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition.

¶38

W.P.(C).3851/04

¶39

¶40

Even in the writ petition, petitioner does not have a case that he is not a party to the decision to shift the site in question. Ext.P2 complaint shows that this fact is not mentioned in the complaint. Therefore the finding of the Ombudsman that the complaint was filed suppressing the material fact, is perfectly justified. If that be so, Ombudsman cannot be faulted for not only dismissing the complaint but also imposing cost on the petitioner.

¶41

As far as the power to impose cost on a party before the Ombudsman is concerned, Section 271K (2) of the Act, reads thus:-

¶42

Where the Ombudsman finds that the allegation contained in a complaint is without any substance or trivial in nature if may by order direct the complainant to pay to the opposite party so much of the amount specified in the order by way of cost.

¶43

A reading of this provision shows that the Ombudsman is perfectly competent to levy cost, if

¶44

W.P.(C).3851/04

¶45

¶46

complaint is without any substance or trivial in nature. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P3, dismissing the complaint of the petitioner or awarding cost on him.

¶47

Writ petition fails and it is dismissed.

¶48

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶49

mrcs

¶50

/true copy/ PA To Judge

Issac v. the Kerala Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Issac v. the Kerala Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala Hockey Association Vs the Kerala State Sports Council

K.P.Alexander Vs the State of Kerala

Ajith Kumar.M.K. Vs Vaikom Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.1193

Mohammed Kunju K.B. & 29 Others Vs Eloor Grama Panchayath

C.P.Saidali @ Kunjava Vs the Irumbuliyam Grama Panchayath,Malappu

T.P. Padmanabhan Vs State of Kerala