Manjula Chellur,CJ
Initially writ petition came to be filed by writ petitioner, who is 1st respondent in the present appeal, contending that appellant herein, who is his neighbour, is causing trouble to him.
2. In brief, according to petitioner, she purchased 10 cents of land from 4th respondent in 1982 and constructed a house. Subsequently in 2004, she constructed a new gate and put some concrete slabs for the ingress of her car to the public road. Since appellant/4th respondent was not in good terms with the writ petitioner, he filed a complaint to demolish the ramp put up near the gate. According to writ petitioner, this ramp would cause no obstruction or inconvenience or hardship to anyone least the appellant/4th respondent or third parties obstructing the free flow of traffic or water through the drainage underneath the slab.
3. The concerned authorities, after inspecting the site, were also of the opinion that no obstruction either to the drainage or to the traffic is caused. However, writ petitioner was directed to execute a bond in favour of 3rd respondent/Assistant Executive Engineer that ramp will be demolished at the expense of petitioner in case of necessity, which is at Ext.P2. This came to be challenged by appellant before Ombudsman and Ombudsman passed Ext.P3 order directing the authorities to demolish the ramp in question, on the basis of report of the expert Engineer of Corporation.
4. Then writ petition came to be filed by writ petitioner challenging the orders of Ombudsman. Subsequently stay on Ext.P3 came to be vacated by an interim order dated 21.03.2012. Writ petitioner had a grievance that in pursuance of directions in Ext.P3 the ramp was demolished and she submitted a fresh application before 3rd respondent for construction of a ramp. By virtue of interim order dated 09.04.2014, learned Single Judge passed an order directing 3rd respondent to consider the application, if any, filed by the petitioner for putting up fresh ramp irrespective of pendency of proceedings before Ombudsman. It is also further directed that if 3rd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer proceeds to grant permission, as requested by the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to put up such ramp irrespective of orders of Ombudsman; but however appellant, who was the 4th respondent before the learned Single Judge, was to be heard before passing such orders. However, there is an amendment to the prayers in the writ petition contending that Ombudsman has no power to pass orders like Ext.P3 and other reliefs.
5. Now the matter is pending before Assistant Executive Engineer of local authority and he has to consider the application of the writ petitioner for putting up a ramp, after hearing both writ petitioner and 4th respondent. It is needless to say, the Assistant Executive Engineer has to consider the application from all angles, apart from the complaint made by 4th respondent appellant. It is open to both parties to bring on record hardship and difficulties faced by them if a ramp is put up like a permanent structure or if it is put up as a removable slab.
In the light of above observations, we are of the opinion, neither the writ petition nor writ appeal deserves to be kept pending, therefore, they are disposed of. So far as jurisdiction of Ombudsman to interfere in subject matters of this nature, it is kept open to be considered in appropriate proceedings.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
sj 12/06