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) 13015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
K.S. RAJALAKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 39627 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.MOHANDAS, SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR, SRI.SABU PULLAN, SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN, SHRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN
For the Respondents: SMT.P.K.RESHMA

The Ombudsman lacks authority to impose training mandates on Grama Panchayat members without proper notice and jurisdiction.

Headnote:This judgment analyzes the authority of the Ombudsman to direct training for Grama Panchayat members under relevant Local Self Government statutes. The petitioners challenge an order compelling them to attend training, asserting it was issued without proper jurisdiction or notice, particularly as their terms had ended. The court finds merit in these submissions, emphasizing the lack of authority for such directives and thus sets aside the order.

Result: Ext.P4 is set aside.

Table of Content
1. authority of the ombudsman and training directives (Para 1 , 2)

JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent.

2. Petitioners 1 and 2 are members and 3rd petitioner is the former Secretary of the Vellanad Grama Panchayat. The 2nd respondent as per Ext.P4 order finding that the Grama Sabha was not chaired by the President and the same was chaired by the standing committee Chairman, which was found to be against the statute, directed the petitioners to attend a training programme conducted by KILA. Petitioners submit that the 2nd respondent has no power to issue any such direction. It is further submitted that the term of petitioners 1 and 2 is already over and the 3rd petitioner has already retired from service.

Therefore, there is no purpose in the petitioners undergoing any training as directed in Ext.P4. Further, I am of the view that the 2nd respondent cannot issue such directions especially when petitioners 1 and 2 were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings and no notice was issued to them. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to interfere with Ext.P4. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

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