Krishnadas vs State Of Kerala

Shaji P.Chaly, J

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order, writ or direction directing the third respondent to keep in abeyance all the maintainable works of the Biscuit Company—Juice Company road—Pathaikara Mana road situated in Ward No.13 of the respondent Municipality, pending disposal of Ext. P1 complaint.

In the alternative, direct the second respondent to take necessary and proper action on Ext. P6 application withn such time as directed by this Hon'ble Court;

The grievance of the petitioner is that the Perinthalmanna Municipality, respondent No.3, who is hand in glove with Narayanan Namboothiri, Pathaikara Mana, Pathaikara P.O., respondent No.4, is using the public fund to tar a private road leading to the house of the 4th respondent. Therefore, the third respondent is guilty of corruption and mal administration. Alleging those aspects, a complaint was filed before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. The Ombudsman issued notice; however, no interim order was granted. It is, thus, challenging the declining of interim order by the Ombudsman, this writ petition is filed.

This writ petition was pending before this Court from the year 2015 without securing any interim orders. It is important to note that the Secretary of the Perinthalmanna Municipality has filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the road in question is included in the road register of the Municipality, which is maintaining the road for years. Other contentions are also raised.

In fact, I am not inclined to go into the details and adjudicate the issue, because even according to the petitioner, the subject matter is pending before the Ombudsman from the year 2015 onwards.

The sole question to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to approach this Court, merely because the Ombudsman has declined the interim order at the initial stage.

After perusing the pleadings and the materials on record, I am of the considered opinion that the interim relief sought for is the final relief sought for in the complaint. It is a settled proposition in law that normally and ordinarily, the final relief sought for cannot be granted as an interim order. This is a case where the petitioner has alleged that the 4th respondent, in collusion with the Secretary of the Municipality, is attempting to tar a private road, which is a subject matter to be considered by the Ombudsman after appreciating necessary evidence adduced by the parties.

In that view of the matter, I do not think, the petitioner has made out any case for interference with the inaction of the Ombudsman in not passing an interim order at the initial stage, there being no illegality or arbitrariness, susceptible to be interfered with in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, I make it clear that if the complaint is still pending before the Ombudsman, it is for the respective parties to take up all the contentions and participate in the proceedings.