S. MOHANAKUMARAN NAIR Vs. KERALA LOK AYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Kerala Water Authority.

(2.) THE appellant was the writ petitioner who is aggrieved by denial of quashing Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent, Lok Ayukta in complaint No.773 of 2008. According to the appellant, the order of Lok Ayukta at Ext.P2 is erroneous as no proper evidence was taken into consideration to look into the complaint of the appellant and the respondent authorities have acted prejudicially. They are expected to discharge their functions and duties as per procedure. In other words, giving or approving water connection to the house of the 4th respondent when the water connection in question was in the name of one Parukutty Amma who was no more itself speaks volumes about the functioning of the respondent authorities, therefore, he had to lodge a complaint before the 1st respondent authority.

(3.) ON perusal of records, especially the order of Lok Ayukta, both on the complaint and the review, we note that Water Authority acted on account of a certificate produced before them, said to have been issued by the Commissioner of Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram. It is not in dispute that the property in question i.e.T.C. No.43/435 belonged to Smt.Parukkutty Amma and after her demise, her legal heirs sold the property to the vendor of the 4th respondent. The discussion made by Lok Ayukta indicates, on earlier occasion the matter was referred to Adalat at the instance of the Chief Secretary. In the Adalat the party respondent agreed to pay off arrears of water connection since 1992 which amounted to Rs.54,000.00 and odd. No doubt, the said Adalat-exercise was subsequent to the complaint filed by the present appellant.