CHITHRA SANTHOSH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P14 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, and also seeking a direction to 2nd and 3rd respondents to remove the unscientific construction of a portion of Mottamoola - Puthenvila Road in the stretch passing near to the house of the petitioner, since the construction carried out is causing obstruction to the petitioner for access to the residential building. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) The 2nd respondent, i.e., the Karakulam Grama Panchayat, in the year 2010, under the Peoples Plan Campaign, developed a small pathway by name Mottamoola - Puthenvila road by concreting it on an estimate of Rs.1,00,000/-. The said pathway lies on the eastern side of petitioner's compound wall and main gate. Before concreting the pathway, petitioner could freely negotiate her vehicles to the compound through the said pathway. At the time of concreting, petitioner was not available in station. However, when she came back, she was shocked to see that by concreting the said pathway unscientifically and without considering the lie and existing profile of the petitioner's house and main gate, the said concreting has resulted in obstructing free movement of vehicles into petitioner's property, as can be seen from the photographs produced as Ext.P1.

(3.) The present situation is that, petitioner is unable to access the property due to the unscientific construction carried out. Even though petitioner made complaints, the 2nd and 3rd respondents did not take any action to redress the same, and thereupon, petitioner approached the Ombudsman by filing O.P.No.182/2011. The Ombudsman called for reports from engineers and reports were submitted, which are produced as Exts.P2 and P8. In the reports, it is specifically stated that the building of the petitioner was constructed before the said concrete road and the concrete road was laid without considering the existing profile. The Ombudsman also called for the estimate of the work to be done to redress the grievance of the petitioner and in order to have a quietus to the issue. However, 2nd respondent submitted an exorbitant estimate and submitted that they are not ready to remove the obstacle, since it involves huge cost. But, the Ombudsman directed the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P14 order, and therefore, according to the petitioner, having realized the situation from the reports submitted, the Ombudsman ought to have directed the Panchayat to carry out necessary construction in order to ventilate the grievances of the petitioner. That apart, it is submitted that, petitioner has suggested a feasible solution to redress her grievances, which, according to the petitioner, would cost only less than Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, petitioner seeks interference with Ext.P14 order and consequential directions to the respondents.