KAKOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH KAKOOR P O KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY Vs. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Kakoor Grama Panchayat. THE panchayat was entrusted with a project for giving financial assistance to people of the Panchayat for construction of houses under the 10th Five Year Plan. THE project contemplated inviting applications for such financial assistance and selection from among the applicants based on specific parameters, for each of which, marks have to be given to the applicants as fixed in the scheme. A priority list has to be drawn up on the basis of marks so awarded and financial assistance was to be given based on the priority of the applicants in that list. THE 2nd respondent herein was an applicant who was eligible for financial assistance under the project. Her application was considered and going by the parameters fixed in the relevant order for the project she was awarded 10 marks and was ranked 24 in the priority list. As per the decision of the Grama Sabha on 26.8.2003 a final list was settled in the meeting held on 23.9.2003. THE panchayat started implementation of the project based on that list. Two years thereafter, on 4.7.2005 the 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions complaining that she was not awarded eligible marks and consequentially she has been ranked lower in the priority list prepared. THE Ombudsman considered the complaint and entered a finding that the 2nd respondent ought to have been given 60 marks and on that basis directed the panchayat to grant financial assistance to the 2nd respondent and the Secretary of the Panchayat was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the 2nd respondent. Ext.P7 is that order. Although the panchayat filed a review petition, that was also rejected by Ext.P9 order. THE petitioner panchayat is challenging Exts.P7 & P9 orders. THE petitioner seeks the following relief:

(2.) THE learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 1st respondent would support the impugned orders. Despite receipt of notice the 2nd respondent has not cared to enter appearance and contest the writ petition.

(3.) EVEN apart from that, I am of opinion that Ext.P7 order of the Ombudsman lacks proper reasoning. The same reads thus: