The Court dismissed a review petition seeking to vary an Ombudsman's status quo order regarding road maintenance and a restraining wall in a Panchayat dispute, holding that the Ombudsman correctly relegated parties to Civil Court.
Review petition dismissed; status quo order of the Ombudsman maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/29TH BHADRA, 1939
RP.No. 803 of 2017 ()
JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26344/2014 DATED 06.07.2017.
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
JOB, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 60 YEARS, PERINJERIL HOUSE, VELAMKODE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHARAM.P SMT.REKHA ARAVIND
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, LSGD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, CIVIL STATION PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 020.
3. SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, KODENCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KODENCHERY PO, KOZHIKODE - 673 503.
4. P.REGHULAL, MEMBER, KODENCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, WARD 15, KODENCHERY P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 503.
5. SECRETARY, KODUVALLY BLOCK PANCHAYATH, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 572.
6. ANNIE JOHN KUNNATH, MEMKBER(KODENCHERY DIVISION) KODUVALLY BLOCK PANCHAYATH, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE - 673 572.
--2--
--2--
RP.No. 803 of 2017 ()
7. JOSEPH, S/O.MANI, AGED 78 YEARS, KANDATHIL HOUSE, VELANKODE PO, KOZHIKODE - 673 560.
8. SAJI JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, KANDATHIL HOUSE, VELANKODE PO, KOZHIKODE - 673 560.
9. VIJAYAMMA, W/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 52 YEARS, MADATHIL CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KOODATHAI PO, KOZHIKODE - 673 573.
10. THRESSIAMMA, W/O.ARAKKAL PARAMBIL CHACKO, AGED 55 YEARS, VELANKODE PO, KOZHIKODE - 673 560.
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.B.VINOD R3 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.M.JAMES R5 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU R7 TO R10 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
RP.No. 803 of 2017 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
| ANNEXURE 1 : | TRUE COPY OF THE BEFORE THE PANCHA |
PETITION DATED 15.11.2011 FILED YATH. |
|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE 2 : | TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHAYATH DATED |
RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 15.11.2011. |
| ANNEXURE 3 : | TRUE COPY OF THE THE PANCHAYATH. |
REPLY DATED 3.12.2011 ISSUED BY |
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
=====================
R.P.No.803 of 2017 in
W.P.(C) No.26344 of 2014
============================== Dated this the 20th day of September, 2017
Order
The petitioner in the review petition seeks that the
status quo order as issued in the order of the Ombudsman be varied. The issue raised in the writ petition was with respect to
the maintenance of a road and construction of restraining wall which the petitioner contended was the task of the Panchayat. Before the Ombudsman, the Panchayat submitted that they are
not intending to expend funds for the maintenance or construction of retaining wall.
2
RPNo.803/2017
and directed that parties can agitate their claims before a civil court. Certainly there can be no expunging of the status quo order merely on the request of the petitioner, since the Ombudsman had relegated the parties to the Civil court. Without consideration of the respective rights of the parties, there can be no retaining wall constructed was the finding of the Ombudsman, which this Court does not find any reason to interfere within the present review filed. However if the Panchayat decides to carry on maintenance of the road, it can be done so long as it does not infringe upon and affect any other persons right to property.
The review petition hence would stand dismissed.
Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
SB/20/09/2017
// true copy //
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Hon'ble Ombudsman's status quo order relating to road maintenance and restraining wall in a Panchayat matter requires interference in a review petition.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to expunge the status quo order granted by the Ombudsman without considering respective property rights of parties.
JOB, S/O.MATHEW
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH
SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, KODENCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
P.REGHULAL
SECRETARY, KODUVALLY BLOCK PANCHAYATH
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
