SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ABHILASH – Appellant
Versus
KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4818 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY, SMT.SHANTHIPRIYA D. SHENOY, SHRI.MOHAMED SHALI NAMSHAD, SMT.ANJANA A., SHRI.ANANDA SUBRAMANIAM
For the Respondents: SRI M K ABOOBACKER, SC, SRI SHERRY J THOMAS

The court affirmed the authority of the Ombudsman to adjudicate disputes regarding municipal actions while ensuring timely resolution of pending petitions.

Headnote:The Writ Petition seeks mandamus directing the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions to consider certain petitions promptly. The petitioner's grievance arises from a vacant Ombudsman post and ongoing municipal work, prompting this jurisdictional challenge. The court directed the municipality to stay action on specific pathways until the Ombudsman addresses the pending petitions, mandating a timeframe for consideration once a new Ombudsman is appointed. The municipality's work shall remain in abeyance pending final orders in the petition, which is a key determiner moving forward.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's grievance regarding municipal actions. (Para 2)
2. court's direction for staying municipal work until petitions considered. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" A) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, directing the honourable ombudsman for Local self government institutions will take up and dispose off Exhibit P8 review petition and Exhibit P9 urgent petition forthwith within a time limit fixed by this court after hearing the petitioner and hi advocate and after considering all documents placed on record by them B) A writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to stop all proceedings to o concrete the alleged public pathway revealed as per item 39, 40 and 43 of Exhibit P10 reply issued under the Right to Information Act till the Honourable Ombudsman hears and disposed off Exhibit P8 review petition."

[SIC]

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 review petition before the ombudsman, Local Self Government Institutions (LSGI). The post of Ombudsman is now vacant. The Municipality is now proceeding with the concrete work for the disputed pathway. Petitioner submitted Ext.P11. The same is also not considered is the grievance. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and also Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion that there can be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P11 and keep in abeyance the work mentioned in clauses 39, 40 and 43 in Ext.P10. There can be a direction to the Ombudsman to consider Ext.P8 once the new Ombudsman takes charge, within a time frame.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The work mentioned in clauses 39, 40 and 43 in Ext.P10 shall be kept in abeyance till final orders are passed in Ext.P8 by the Ombudsman for the LSGI.

2. The Ombudsman for LSGI will consider Ext.P8 and pass appropriate orders in it, within two months from the date on which the new Ombudsmen takes charge.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top