✦ High Court of India · 27 Mar 2025

HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR v. MENON THURSDAY, THE

Case Details High Court of India · 27 Mar 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
27 Mar 2025
Bench
HARISANKAR V MENON
Length
1,014 words

SRI T JAYAN GP, SRI DEEPU THANKAN R3, DR.A.C DAVID - PARTY IN PERSON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.28490 of 2023 3 2025:KER:27235 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is stated to have worked as the Secretary of the Kadavalloore Grama Panchayath, Thrissur District, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P10 issued by the Ombudsman for the Local Self Government Institutions, by which an amount of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be paid by him to the 2nd respondent herein towards compensation, allegedly with reference to the delay in issuance of the building permit sought for by the petitioner.

2. I have heard Sri.T.K.Ajith Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Deepu Thankan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent herein and the party in person – 2nd respondent herein.

3. This Court notices that Ext.P10 is passed by the Ombudsman on the basis of Ext.P1 complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent has admittedly sought for a building permit from the Panchayat - the 3 rd respondent. The Panchayat would state that the application W.P.(C)No.28490 of 2023 4 2025:KER:27235 was defective insofar as a pathway was not mentioned in the application. The 2nd respondent took up the contention that, there is no such pathway, relying on the decree obtained from the Civil Court. The decree so obtained has been challenged at the instance of the Panchayat and the matter was pending before this Court in R.S.A. No.625 of 2017. The 2nd respondent herein filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. By Ext.P3, the Tribunal directed the Panchayat to reconsider the application filed by the 2nd respondent and further made it clear that even if ultimately R.S.A. No.625 of 2017 is allowed, the mere fact that the permit is issued would not stand in the way of executing the decree pursuant to R.S.A. No.625 of 2017. However, admittedly, even thereafter the building permit is issued only in the year 2022 - after the lapse of more than four years. It is this delay, that is pointed out by the 2 nd respondent, in the complaint at Ext.P1 before the Ombudsman. I am of the opinion that with respect to the considerations noticed as above, the Ombudsman cannot be found fault with for having issued the order at Ext.P10 W.P.(C)No.28490 of 2023 5 2025:KER:27235 directing payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

4. Even, on the face of the afore finding, the larger question which arises for consideration is as to whether the Ombudsman was justified in directing the payment of the afore compensation by the petitioner herein, who was the 2 nd respondent before the Ombudsman.

5. I notice that under the provisions of Section 271 J, true, the Ombudsman was entitled to direct payment of compensation, in an event, an irregularity by the Local Self Government Institution causes “inconvenience” to a person. As already found, the delay of four years from the passing of Ext.P3 and the ultimate issue of the building permit can only be treated as “inconvenience” as far as the 2nd respondent is concerned. However, Section 271J(iii)(b) entitle the Ombudsman to direct payment of compensation by the “Local Self Government Institution”. Therefore, the Ombudsman was not justified in directing the payment to be effected by the petitioner herein, who admittedly worked as a Secretary for a short period of five months, even as admitted by the 2nd respondent herein. W.P.(C)No.28490 of 2023 6 2025:KER:27235

6. In that view of the matter, though the findings in Ext.P10 cannot be found fault with, I hold that the payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation, is to be effected by the 3rd respondent Panchayat and not by the petitioner herein.

7. Needless to say that it is for the Local Self Government Institution- 3rd respondent – to consider as to whether the afore amount, if paid by the institution is to be recovered from the petitioner or not. Leaving open the afore right of the 3rd respondent, this writ petition would stand disposed of by modifying Ext.P10 and holding that the petitioner has no liability to satisfy Rs.10,000/- as ordered and it is for the 3 rd respondent to satisfy the said amount. Sd/- HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE ANA W.P.(C)No.28490 of 2023 7 2025:KER:27235 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28490/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10- 10-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 24-6-2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.868/2017 DATED 17-1-2018 ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7-7-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-8- 2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 30- 9-2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-11- 2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31-1- 2023 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10- 4-2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5-7-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

SRI T JAYAN GP, SRI DEEPU THANKAN R3, DR.A.C DAVID - PARTY IN PERSON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.28490 of 2023 3 2025:KER:27235 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is stated to have worked as the Secretary of the Kadavalloore Grama Panchayath, Thrissur District, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P10 issued by the Ombudsman for the Local Self Government Institutions, by which an amount of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be paid by him to the 2nd respondent herein towards compensation, allegedly with reference to the delay in issuance of the building permit sought for by the petitioner.

2. I have heard Sri.T.K.Ajith Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Deepu Thankan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent herein and the party in person – 2nd respondent herein.

3. This Court notices that Ext.P10 is passed by the Ombudsman on the basis of Ext.P1 complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent has admittedly sought for a building permit from the Panchayat - the 3 rd respondent. The Panchayat would state that the application W.P.(C)No.28490 of 2023 4 2025:KER:27235 was defective insofar as a pathway was not mentioned in the application. The 2nd respondent took up the contention that, there is no such pathway, relying on the decree obtained from the Civil Court. The decree so obtained has been challenged at the instance of the Panchayat and the matter was pending before this Court in R.S.A. No.625 of 2017. The 2nd respondent herein filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. By Ext.P3, the Tribunal directed the Panchayat to reconsider the application filed by the 2nd respondent and further made it clear that even if ultimately R.S.A. No.625 of 2017 is allowed, the mere fact that the permit is issued would not stand in the way of executing the decree pursuant to R.S.A. No.625 of 2017. However, admittedly, even thereafter the building permit is issued only in the year 2022 - after the lapse of more than four years. It is this delay, that is pointed out by the 2 nd respondent, in the complaint at Ext.P1 before the Ombudsman. I am of the opinion that with respect to the considerations noticed as above, the Ombudsman cannot be found fault with for having issued the order at Ext.P10 W.P.(C)No.28490 of 2023 5 2025:KER:27235 directing payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

4. Even, on the face of the afore finding, the larger question which arises for consideration is as to whether the Ombudsman was justified in directing the payment of the afore compensation by the petitioner herein, who was the 2 nd respondent before the Ombudsman.

5. I notice that under the provisions of Section 271 J, true, the Ombudsman was entitled to direct payment of compensation, in an event, an irregularity by the Local Self Government Institution causes “inconvenience” to a person. As already found, the delay of four years from the passing of Ext.P3 and the ultimate issue of the building permit can only be treated as “inconvenience” as far as the 2nd respondent is concerned. However, Section 271J(iii)(b) entitle the Ombudsman to direct payment of compensation by the “Local Self Government Institution”. Therefore, the Ombudsman was not justified in directing the payment to be effected by the petitioner herein, who admittedly worked as a Secretary for a short period of five months, even as admitted by the 2nd respondent herein. W.P.(C)No.28490 of 2023 6 2025:KER:27235

6. In that view of the matter, though the findings in Ext.P10 cannot be found fault with, I hold that the payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation, is to be effected by the 3rd respondent Panchayat and not by the petitioner herein.

7. Needless to say that it is for the Local Self Government Institution- 3rd respondent – to consider as to whether the afore amount, if paid by the institution is to be recovered from the petitioner or not. Leaving open the afore right of the 3rd respondent, this writ petition would stand disposed of by modifying Ext.P10 and holding that the petitioner has no liability to satisfy Rs.10,000/- as ordered and it is for the 3 rd respondent to satisfy the said amount. Sd/- HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE ANA W.P.(C)No.28490 of 2023 7 2025:KER:27235 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28490/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10- 10-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 24-6-2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.868/2017 DATED 17-1-2018 ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7-7-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-8- 2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 30- 9-2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-11- 2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31-1- 2023 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10- 4-2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5-7-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments