IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON THURSDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 28490 OF 2023 PETITIONER:

MANOJ K, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI NIVAS, PUTHIYAKAVU, THRIPPUNITHURA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTIRCT, PIN – 682301.

BY ADVS.

T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)

R.RAJPRADEEP RESPONDENTS:

1 THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SAPHALYAM COMPLEX, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695033

2 DR.A.C.DAVID, ARIMBOOR HOUSE, ATS ROAD, PALISSERY, PALAKKAD, PIN – 679536.

3 SECRETARY, KADAVALLOORE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARIKKAD P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680519.

BY ADVS.

DR.A.C.DAVID,(Party-In-Person)

DEEPU THANKAN UMMUL FIDA LAKSHMI SREEDHAR LEKSHMI P. NAIR NAMITHA K.M.

OTHER PRESENT:

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:

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 2^nd 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 3^rd respondent herein and the party in person – 2^nd respondent herein.

3. This Court notices that Ext.P10 is passed by the Ombudsman on the basis of Ext.P1 complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent herein. The 2^nd respondent has admittedly sought for a building permit from the Panchayat - the 3^rd respondent. The Panchayat would state that the application was defective insofar as a pathway was not mentioned in the application. The 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 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 2^nd respondent is concerned. However, Section 271J(iii)(b) entitle the Ombudsman to direct payment of compensation by the “Local Self Government Institution”. Therefore, the Ombudsm